Manchester-3
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAG have plenty of spaces identified for future apron expansion, when it’s required - some of which may happen in the not too distant future. They certainly haven’t sold off land that is earmarked for future apron space. Land that has been sold off was in areas that would never realistically be apron as they are inaccessible from the current apron/taxiways.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely! That is a good arguement for never putting national infrastructure in the hands private "for profit" businesses. That ship, certainly in UK, has sailed.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If main deck cargo made decent money for MAG at Manchester then it would be happening. It doesn't. Building the required apron space on a site with very little real estate would be an opportunity cost as compared with selling it off or leasing it to the likes of Amazon for non-aviation use. That's why all those warehouse have sprung up over on the west side on land once identified for core operational use. MAG has sold off that land for good. .
For those of us that may not be totally clear, can you define which land has been sold or leased? Is it all to the east of the A538 Altincham-Wilmslow Rd, or partly to the west where warehouses have already been built?
I appreciate that while work continues on the TP, certain parking stands and taxiways will be closed, but there has always been a degree of confusion as to whether, when the project is complete, MAN will be able to accommodate more aircraft (especially overnight) than it did previously. The TP was promoted to emphasise modernisation, upgrade etc rather than expansion, probably to allay the fears of some of the local community.
MAN relies heavily, since it saw the light on the impact of lo-cost airlines, on the business provided by easyjet, ryaniar and Jet 2, (whilst not ignoring the contribution of TUI, legacy carriers and a decent array of long haul routes). There have been reports in the past that ryanair has not been able to increase its based fleet at MAN to the extent it wanted, although it's pleasing to read that each of those 3 airlines are basing an extra unit this summer. In the case of ryanair, I imagine capacity constraints at T3 is also a factor. Ryanair has reacted by using a decent proportion of flights with away based aircraft, and I understand easyjet is also increasing such flights this summer. Slightly larger narrow-bodied a/c will also help.
So, is MAN really hemmed in by its limited space which MAG in its wisdom has reduced further, or could ingenuity create additional parking stands necessary at peak periods?
Last edited by MANFOD; 19th Jan 2024 at 09:17. Reason: to add relevant fact
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: manchester
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the apron to the northwest corner providing access to Pier 1 at T2 and the new remotes is additional. If all of T1 become remotes then those stands are the additional relative to before the TP. That assumes that Pier 2 and whatever happens where Pier 3 is planned and masterplan images show rotation of the stands, are not less than was before.
But, if parts of T1 are to be demolished, and Pier C is committed to be demolished as part of the planning for TP, then those stands would be lost at least for a period of time until replacements are built.
Overall, i would have thought that there will be a slight / very slight increase in stands over the next 2-3 years as all of this work finishes. And, i know that the TP will be 'finished' in 2025 but i'm assuming changes around T1 after that when i say that. Rightly or wrongly!
But, if parts of T1 are to be demolished, and Pier C is committed to be demolished as part of the planning for TP, then those stands would be lost at least for a period of time until replacements are built.
Overall, i would have thought that there will be a slight / very slight increase in stands over the next 2-3 years as all of this work finishes. And, i know that the TP will be 'finished' in 2025 but i'm assuming changes around T1 after that when i say that. Rightly or wrongly!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MAG have plenty of spaces identified for future apron expansion, when it’s required - some of which may happen in the not too distant future. They certainly haven’t sold off land that is earmarked for future apron space. Land that has been sold off was in areas that would never realistically be apron as they are inaccessible from the current apron/taxiways.
Are you thinking of the space around T1 for example or somewhere else on the airfield?
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The councils have no input day to day or even annually of significance in the structure, operations or indeed investment or infrastructure processes.
Right now they aren’t even getting the dividends as the Group continues to focus on strengthening the balance sheet post COVID..
They do have nearly £600 million of cash reserves and a credit rating of BBB so have a foundation to move forwards as a group with some further structural changes in the next few years
With steady growth at both Manchester and Stansted returns to dividend payments could be expected around 2026
At the right price the international division “might” have some facilities for acquisitions but where idk.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to some of the points and questions which my previous post has generated.
MAG sold off most of the cargo area in 2020/21 to Columbia Threadneedle, a real estate company. Have a look at the website linked below, it shows the area in question. In master planning terms this is where you might think to relocate some core facilities such as transit sheds, maintenance hangars, GA etc from their existing locations in order to free up sites which are better located for new aprons - i.e. closer to the runways and served by existing taxiways. MAG kept a strip comprising the existing transit sheds, which was assumed to be developed as future aprons, but I was never clear as to how this new apron would be accessed by aircraft, except by deleting the existing stands 67-72. No nett gain.
Big swathes of land have been lost to Airport City in exactly the areas you imagine would be reserved for core use in any long term major expansion plan. The loss of land to Airport City North in part drove the development of the new T2 multi storey car park right alongside the new terminal extension. This is surely where you would imagine a future expansion to the building and/or the apron might have gone. Airport City West (Global Logistics) has taken a site which could be a future terminal, aprons, cargo centre, or a rail hub with an extension of the existing line westwards. The A538 need not be an obstacle to getting aircraft over there. Regrading of the road and/or a taxiway bridge like Schipol would take care of that. Out to the east of T3 there is land but it has repeatedly failed business cases using MAG's model of ROI. Lots of underground services to relocate, plus other opportunity costs of replacing lost revenue streams. It is the same all over the estate. Can't go to the south because of land ownership, green belt, SSSI issues. Can't go north due to existing urbanisation and land sold off to Airport City. Going west some limited land is available at the transit sheds, but no detailed plans were in existence as to how any new aprons would integrate into the existing taxiway network and affect aircraft ground movement. Going east - limited and very expensive in terms of development cost against revenue driven. MAN is as much 'boxed in' by MAG's business model as it is by the physical constraints.
Existing estate — World Freight Terminal
Welcome to Airport City Manchester | Airport City Manchester
MAG sold off most of the cargo area in 2020/21 to Columbia Threadneedle, a real estate company. Have a look at the website linked below, it shows the area in question. In master planning terms this is where you might think to relocate some core facilities such as transit sheds, maintenance hangars, GA etc from their existing locations in order to free up sites which are better located for new aprons - i.e. closer to the runways and served by existing taxiways. MAG kept a strip comprising the existing transit sheds, which was assumed to be developed as future aprons, but I was never clear as to how this new apron would be accessed by aircraft, except by deleting the existing stands 67-72. No nett gain.
Big swathes of land have been lost to Airport City in exactly the areas you imagine would be reserved for core use in any long term major expansion plan. The loss of land to Airport City North in part drove the development of the new T2 multi storey car park right alongside the new terminal extension. This is surely where you would imagine a future expansion to the building and/or the apron might have gone. Airport City West (Global Logistics) has taken a site which could be a future terminal, aprons, cargo centre, or a rail hub with an extension of the existing line westwards. The A538 need not be an obstacle to getting aircraft over there. Regrading of the road and/or a taxiway bridge like Schipol would take care of that. Out to the east of T3 there is land but it has repeatedly failed business cases using MAG's model of ROI. Lots of underground services to relocate, plus other opportunity costs of replacing lost revenue streams. It is the same all over the estate. Can't go to the south because of land ownership, green belt, SSSI issues. Can't go north due to existing urbanisation and land sold off to Airport City. Going west some limited land is available at the transit sheds, but no detailed plans were in existence as to how any new aprons would integrate into the existing taxiway network and affect aircraft ground movement. Going east - limited and very expensive in terms of development cost against revenue driven. MAN is as much 'boxed in' by MAG's business model as it is by the physical constraints.
Existing estate — World Freight Terminal
Welcome to Airport City Manchester | Airport City Manchester
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies Manair6, I missed your post before responding to roverman. If what you say is correct, then my concern is partially alleviated. However, I'm intrigued by the statement I've highlighted.
Are you thinking of the space around T1 for example or somewhere else on the airfield?
Are you thinking of the space around T1 for example or somewhere else on the airfield?
Longer term there are opportunities to re-align Runger Lane closer to the M56 to provide apron expansion, expansion of T3 apron over the midstay car park (finally!), and the T1 footprint, including the multi storey area, post demolition.
This is before even looking at the area to the south west of the Runway Visitor Park.
Join Date: May 2022
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, therefore new stands on transit shed site would replace these however this would result in a net gain in stands as the Pier 2 configuration once complete provides more stands on that footprint than previously.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manair6 - it all depends on what marker in time we are using as the datum for stands gained vs lost, i.e. nett. The west gate and proposed transit shed aprons replace (roughly) stands 63-72 which were built between 1980 and 2005. Therefore no nett gain against that period. I haven't seen the numbers on the Pier 2 development but the nett gain can't be great. What we do get is a better fit of stands than we had previously - i.e. taking account of present and future aircraft characteristics rather than those designed for 20th Century fleets. That is a plus. Those other areas you mention such as near the viewing park, which are currently car parks, have been in the masterplan for a long time. As long as MAG draws so heavily on car park revenues to turn a profit and pay dividends, the business case for constructing aprons on these sites never stacks up. Diverting Runger Lane was always being kicked in to the long grass on cost grounds and the loss of car park revenue. Also, MAG is bound by planning consents dating back to the original T2 (1993) to re-model junction 6 of the M56 and construct another link road to junction 5 when a certain level of passenger traffic is reached (I can't recall the number). This would be extremely expensive and I wonder how that would affect the whole financial case for expansion. Perhaps things are changing in that regard?
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manchester has taken at leat 14 diversios today from Dublin/Glasgow/Leeds/Heathrow/Stansted
Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA
All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.
Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA
All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 60
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversions
Manchester has taken at leat 14 diversios today from Dublin/Glasgow/Leeds/Heathrow/Stansted
Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA
All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.
Mainly Ryanair/Easyjet/Jet2 flights but we have had a Qatar B777 grom LHR this evening and a KLM from LBA
All this talk of no room for additional aircraft , i do believe alot of flights were all for fuel then depart, but neverless there's still room in the inn to accomodate extra flights, these aircraft still needed stands on remote whilst here.
Pete
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
Last edited by Navpi; 22nd Jan 2024 at 15:10.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Danunder
Age: 49
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
Ken O' Toole replaced Charlie Cornish as MAG's CEO.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hats off to Manchester Airport and the ground handlers yesterday. The airport that normally throws out a NO DIV notice or gives a sense of reluctance to handle anything that is not scheduled really threw down the red carpet.
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
In my view this can do attitude all comes from the top and in CW there is a CEO who is more Gil Thompson than Charlie Cornish.
No idea where they parked as i disagree most were fuel and go given there wasn't actually anywhere to go ?
Non standard use of stands/closed stands by parking not using normal centre lines, stopping short etc. Works OK if only for a temporary short period but wouldn't over an extended period.
That coupled with MAN actually losing a few due diversions and cancelling overnight planned taxiway works meant it "just" worked. The various works going on sometimes overnight can compromise ability to take diverts. You can occasionally have an empty stand but no way to get there.
Despite what's often discussed on here that's actually the normal approach/consideration, colloquially referred to as "smart parking" (for longer term parking that refers to nose to tail overlapping aircraft). Still having somewhere to put the early morning arrivals has to be accommodated.