Manchester-3
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is my recollection, too. It was always CDG never LHR, and the service only lasted 3 or 4 years. The first SAA flight was in 1990. I remember the controversy at the time because Nelson Mandela was still in prison and apartheid still partially in place in South Africa. Manchester City Council were not pleased about SAA, the state airline, using their airport but had to concede that they couldn't refuse them access.743, 744 and SP all appeared on the route at various times.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Stockport
Age: 56
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HS2 replacement
Some news on developments associated with a new rail link to Manchester Airport from the Midlands being put together by Andy Burnham and Andy Street. The idea is that it would link up with a west to east cross country Northern Powerhouse rail.
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...-2-21-03-2024/
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/lat...-2-21-03-2024/
Thanks to the relevant posters for the feedback and corrections regarding my recent post regarding the former South African Airways flights at Manchester during the early nineties.
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Where ever I am
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FedEx ATR arrived this morning from Toulouse inline for restart of FedEx ops to Paris CDG next week
First schedule freight service for sometime,along with China Cargo Airlines B777's to start in April,
First schedule freight service for sometime,along with China Cargo Airlines B777's to start in April,
The second phase will see the original building upgraded with a second security hall and a new-look, extended departure lounge, along with reconfigurations of the airfield to make operations more efficient. Upon completion in 2025, over 70 per cent of all passengers will use the expanded T2, with Terminal 1 then closing.
Now the airport has announced it's entered a crucial stage in the latest phase of work - meaning it will be able to compete with the top European airports. The airfield is being redesigned in a move the airport said would allow 'significantly more aircraft movements'. A new pier at Terminal 2 is also being constructed to increase the capacity of the airport.
"Taken together, the two innovations will help Manchester Airport add more destinations in the future – on top of the 200 we already serve – and provide greater choice and value for our passengers," said a spokesperson. "It already offers more than 200 destinations and the extra capacity and space for more modern planes will let it increase that number."
The changes to the airfield to boost its capacity will allow the world's biggest passenger planes - Airbus A380s - to pass side-by-side as they taxi to and from Terminal 2. The extra pier, the airport said, will almost double the number of aircraft that can operate from the brand-new super-terminal while offering passengers more space while they wait.
Now the airport has announced it's entered a crucial stage in the latest phase of work - meaning it will be able to compete with the top European airports. The airfield is being redesigned in a move the airport said would allow 'significantly more aircraft movements'. A new pier at Terminal 2 is also being constructed to increase the capacity of the airport.
"Taken together, the two innovations will help Manchester Airport add more destinations in the future – on top of the 200 we already serve – and provide greater choice and value for our passengers," said a spokesperson. "It already offers more than 200 destinations and the extra capacity and space for more modern planes will let it increase that number."
The changes to the airfield to boost its capacity will allow the world's biggest passenger planes - Airbus A380s - to pass side-by-side as they taxi to and from Terminal 2. The extra pier, the airport said, will almost double the number of aircraft that can operate from the brand-new super-terminal while offering passengers more space while they wait.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite a bit of spin in that statement from MAG. Whilst I am a big fan of what's happening at T2, and a regular user of it, we must be careful how we describe characteristics being delivered.
"Doubling the number of aircraft which can be handled at the super terminal" (by building Pier 2) Hmm. It rather depends on where you set the datum. Is that 2016? (when work on TP began), or 2019? (when Pier 1 opened), or now? (when many original stands have been closed to allow construction). In no scenario can I count a doubling of the number of aircraft which can be handled at T2. It also depends on whether you include flights which are bussed out to remote stands, as they were and always will be, in the number being 'handled at the super terminal'. The joys of spin!
Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.
"Doubling the number of aircraft which can be handled at the super terminal" (by building Pier 2) Hmm. It rather depends on where you set the datum. Is that 2016? (when work on TP began), or 2019? (when Pier 1 opened), or now? (when many original stands have been closed to allow construction). In no scenario can I count a doubling of the number of aircraft which can be handled at T2. It also depends on whether you include flights which are bussed out to remote stands, as they were and always will be, in the number being 'handled at the super terminal'. The joys of spin!
Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm struggling as to the actual capacity of T2. Its obviously the future but unless it's extended AGAIN its pax throughput is surely limited. No one seems to know what current pax capacity now is.
LGW has 180 stands
Man 120 ?
any advance.
LGW has 180 stands
Man 120 ?
any advance.
Last edited by Navpi; 23rd Mar 2024 at 06:47.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by roverman; 23rd Mar 2024 at 12:51.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's anyone's guess. At it's launch back in 2016, T2 was to get 3 new perpendicular piers with a footprint for a 4th, replacing the legacy east and West piers of the 1993 T2. West Pier was demolished and Pier 1 opened in 2019. Somewhere amid the covid pandemic and a change of main contractor this has now been reduced to just 2 new piers plus some legacy stands from the old T2 East Pier, despite an uplift in the original budget of £825 (hopelessly inadequate) to £1.3Bn today. I suspect we are being softened up for an announcement which when un-spun will reveal that T1 is not in fact dead, but will continue as part of T3. This might mean EZY staying friends with Ryanair under one roof. I can't see how moving EZY into a 2-pier T2 will work.
I think the T1 gates at Pier B will remain and be used for T3 ops for RYR and EZY.
the question then is what happens with Pier C. Does it also keep its stands or does it get knocked down to create space for potential future developments of T2?
The limiting factor at T2 once finished will still be WB contact stands. One will be for EK in the new pier, then you have EY, TK, GF, FI, TS, BG that all use WB aircraft into T1 (not all regularly but it still happens). Before any further growth from current carriers and with potential new/returning carriers I still see T2 being heavily reliant on remote ops.
Quite a bit of spin in that statement from MAG. Whilst I am a big fan of what's happening at T2, and a regular user of it, we must be careful how we describe characteristics being delivered.
Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.
Also on the airfield - allowing two A380s to pass each other on the taxiways? That was never envisaged when I worked on the project. There isn't sufficient space between Pier C and the cargo fence line to facilitate two parallel Code F taxiways / taxilanes. Given the low frequency of A380 (ICAO Code F) movements it was accepted that these aircraft will have a dedicated route which temporarily blocks the double-taxiway. The A380 taxiway route had the project name 'Delta Diamond' as it was to be marked out with distinctive diamond paint markings, as used at Washington Dulles for the same purpose.
Regarding the taxiway between pier C and the cargo area, my understanding is that west gate is being demolished and the access road moved to make way for the wider taxiway. SRT are going to lose a bit of their front yard too.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I should have course have paraphrased my comment regarding the comparison and stands, the point being that LGW seems a reasonable comparator and Chris W came from LGW so is perhaps using LGW as the litmus test ?
The actuality between the two is vastly different.
LGW has 180 stands and in 2023 handled 41m pax.
Core max movements is I believe circa 55 per hour 6am till 11pm SRO , with maybe a degree of flex at the margins.
In 2024 forecast is 44m , but it also has the possibility of 2 runway operation down the line. I'm unsure whether it can expand terminal or stand capacity ?
Manchester has two runways therefore the greater capacity in terms of movements ? wrong !
I believe MAN has a max 57 movements per hour even on 2 runways (due configuration and absolutely draconian noise abatement which massively reduces movements).
It only has 120 stands but does at least operate on a 24/7 operation, 120 may even be generous when all WIP is complete. In 2024 throughput wiĺl be 29-30m.
The point is that LGW is already hitting a figure 30% higher than Manchester with options. Manchester appears constrained even now by planning decisions made years
ago !
Whilst it may be hot air Chris W, did address a meeting earlier this week re investments and opportunities where a statement was made ...
"with PLANS to fly 60m people by 2050"
He has been quoted as saying LGW is doing 40m on a SRO so the implication is clear, he feels MAN can do more with 2 ?
So what is the grand plan behind that vision ?
When plans were first mooted for T2 expansion back in 2014 T2 definitely morphed into T1. At that time there were 18 domestic airports served with an expectation that we would have one mega terminal which would be quote "ideal for seamless connectivity and transfers" , i recall seeing that quote! I'm sure 45m throughput was mentioned in the same article as well.
I'm struggling how MAN gets much beyond even 35m let alone 45m. Infact I'm insure whether after all this work we will have any more stands than we did 10 years ago.
The actuality between the two is vastly different.
LGW has 180 stands and in 2023 handled 41m pax.
Core max movements is I believe circa 55 per hour 6am till 11pm SRO , with maybe a degree of flex at the margins.
In 2024 forecast is 44m , but it also has the possibility of 2 runway operation down the line. I'm unsure whether it can expand terminal or stand capacity ?
Manchester has two runways therefore the greater capacity in terms of movements ? wrong !
I believe MAN has a max 57 movements per hour even on 2 runways (due configuration and absolutely draconian noise abatement which massively reduces movements).
It only has 120 stands but does at least operate on a 24/7 operation, 120 may even be generous when all WIP is complete. In 2024 throughput wiĺl be 29-30m.
The point is that LGW is already hitting a figure 30% higher than Manchester with options. Manchester appears constrained even now by planning decisions made years
ago !
Whilst it may be hot air Chris W, did address a meeting earlier this week re investments and opportunities where a statement was made ...
"with PLANS to fly 60m people by 2050"
He has been quoted as saying LGW is doing 40m on a SRO so the implication is clear, he feels MAN can do more with 2 ?
So what is the grand plan behind that vision ?
When plans were first mooted for T2 expansion back in 2014 T2 definitely morphed into T1. At that time there were 18 domestic airports served with an expectation that we would have one mega terminal which would be quote "ideal for seamless connectivity and transfers" , i recall seeing that quote! I'm sure 45m throughput was mentioned in the same article as well.
I'm struggling how MAN gets much beyond even 35m let alone 45m. Infact I'm insure whether after all this work we will have any more stands than we did 10 years ago.
Last edited by Navpi; 23rd Mar 2024 at 08:27.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gatwick has pretty much developed in a linear fashion parallel to the prime runway , has rather few cul-de-sac stands ( just a few round the rotunda on South Terminal ) .
The fact they have not one but two full length parallel taxiways ( one being the temporary runway through never built as such !) , well spaced rapid turn outs several at both ends and hardly any environmental problems lining up off of base leg (just a short section across Tunbridge Wells) , certainly makes it a highly effective operation in every way.
They also fewer sheds
However within its foot print don’t believe there is much of an area the create any more stands in future.
Manchester on the other hand
Has one and half runways , NO true parallel taxiway for either and as for rapid links woefully inadequate , active runway crossing for use of the south runway , terminal area cull-de-sacs and constraints to the west by sheds and even hangers , further limitations on effective development to the East of T3 .
It really is a logistical challenge to get anything close to Gatwick levels of efficiency anytime soon.
The fact they have not one but two full length parallel taxiways ( one being the temporary runway through never built as such !) , well spaced rapid turn outs several at both ends and hardly any environmental problems lining up off of base leg (just a short section across Tunbridge Wells) , certainly makes it a highly effective operation in every way.
They also fewer sheds
However within its foot print don’t believe there is much of an area the create any more stands in future.
Manchester on the other hand
Has one and half runways , NO true parallel taxiway for either and as for rapid links woefully inadequate , active runway crossing for use of the south runway , terminal area cull-de-sacs and constraints to the west by sheds and even hangers , further limitations on effective development to the East of T3 .
It really is a logistical challenge to get anything close to Gatwick levels of efficiency anytime soon.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 58
Posts: 897
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest aerodrome chart for MAN lists coordinates for 146 stands. For LGW that number is 184. They both include offset stands (eg 112, 112L and 112R) so whether they can all be used at the same time is debatable, but as both lists use the same methodology I guess we can take those numbers. The area where T2 pier 2 is being constructed is currently out of service. I don’t know what the layout once it is completed will be, but using pier 1 as a guide I would think the net gain will be an extra 10 stands.
Looking at pictures from the recent announcements it appears that stands 63-72 will disappear to allow the dual taxiway. It also looks like the satellite from T1 pier C will disappear, but the remainder of the pier, and pier B remains. Although T1 closing was the headline, I would be very surprised if that includes the T1 aircraft parking infrastructure, whether as remote stands for T1 or T3, or accessed via T3.
Finally the pictures show a vacant area where T2 pier 3 (and maybe pier 4) were originally planned which I seem to recall are now planned as remote parking with stands aligned as if the new piers had been built.
Looking at pictures from the recent announcements it appears that stands 63-72 will disappear to allow the dual taxiway. It also looks like the satellite from T1 pier C will disappear, but the remainder of the pier, and pier B remains. Although T1 closing was the headline, I would be very surprised if that includes the T1 aircraft parking infrastructure, whether as remote stands for T1 or T3, or accessed via T3.
Finally the pictures show a vacant area where T2 pier 3 (and maybe pier 4) were originally planned which I seem to recall are now planned as remote parking with stands aligned as if the new piers had been built.
A lot more busses and drivers will be needed if that plan goes through, I can’t imagine the airlines planned for that scenario will be best impressed. Totally at the whim of the airport for on time departures, especially first thing in the morning, and nobody enjoys being crammed into a bus. Passenger & airline satisfaction will be hit.
The other option would be to open pier B from T3. But then T3 doesn’t have the capacity for the extra check in desks and security.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That seems to be the plan. However the stands on T1 pier B are planned to be used - just remotely using busses from T2.
A lot more busses and drivers will be needed if that plan goes through, I can’t imagine the airlines planned for that scenario will be best impressed. Totally at the whim of the airport for on time departures, especially first thing in the morning, and nobody enjoys being crammed into a bus. Passenger & airline satisfaction will be hit.
The other option would be to open pier B from T3. But then T3 doesn’t have the capacity for the extra check in desks and security.
A lot more busses and drivers will be needed if that plan goes through, I can’t imagine the airlines planned for that scenario will be best impressed. Totally at the whim of the airport for on time departures, especially first thing in the morning, and nobody enjoys being crammed into a bus. Passenger & airline satisfaction will be hit.
The other option would be to open pier B from T3. But then T3 doesn’t have the capacity for the extra check in desks and security.
Might help a little in reducing some of the bottlenecks .
IMHO I’d want to complete a full parallel taxiway on the southern runway and change the priority of runway use with the southern runway being for landing in both directions and the northern for departures reducing much of the current crossing traffic.
Caveats Wool Lane closed , Bollin culverted and another bridge would be required . Appreciated not cheap nor environmentally easy .
Last edited by Rutan16; 23rd Mar 2024 at 10:46.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question of future terminal capacity and gate capacity at MAN seems to be a bit of a conundrum, doesn't it?
From that MAN publication of 31 Jan'24 was this: -
."Once complete, Terminal 2 will become the airport’s main terminal and cater for over 70% of its passengers. It will also allow for the closure of Terminal 1."
How much over 70% is not clear but 70% is the figure azz767 mentioned which at the time surprised me. I expected it to be more.
On present traffic levels, that would mean 21m+ passengers, but how are the other 8-9m going to be processed? Incidentally, was a figure of up to 25m quoted at one stage for handling pax at T2 when the TP was complete?
I would have thought the chances of easyjet with its 20+ based units joining ryanair in T3 (but using stands on pier B) were nil, even if the other sundry carriers currently in T3 move to T2.
So, does anyone know what the maximum annual throughput has been in T3? More importantly, what is the maximum hourly capacity and isn't that already reached at peak period?
If T3 is not feasible for easyjet, apart from moving to T2, the other option, as roverman suggests, is for T1 in whole or in part to remain open for a time. The quote "will also allow for the closure of T1" doesn't necessarily imply immediately. If they are to move to T2, there could be some long walks if flights were departing from stand 10 or 11 on pier B. Travelators anyone?
The other question raised is whether there will be enough contact stands on T2 for wide-bodies? Is it 5 or 6 contact stands on the eastern side of Pier 1?
As I understand it, pier 2, which is now going to be longer than the original planned shorter stub when there was going to be a pier3, will provide maximum flexibility in terms of wide and narrow bodied aircraft. What is the maximum number of wide bodies that could be accommodated at any one time if there were no smaller a/c parked there?
Of course, the demand for wide body contact stands will be spread to a degree but EK; EY; QR; CX; ET, 1 Chinese carrier, plus a couple of the earlier VS arrivals, EI and at least 2 TUI (and maybe Jet2 with A330s) could want contact stands in the same period. SQ are a little later and I don't think GF are wide bodies at present are they? It does look tight, especially if delays occur. And some of those carriers may not be too keen on remote parking.
From that MAN publication of 31 Jan'24 was this: -
."Once complete, Terminal 2 will become the airport’s main terminal and cater for over 70% of its passengers. It will also allow for the closure of Terminal 1."
How much over 70% is not clear but 70% is the figure azz767 mentioned which at the time surprised me. I expected it to be more.
On present traffic levels, that would mean 21m+ passengers, but how are the other 8-9m going to be processed? Incidentally, was a figure of up to 25m quoted at one stage for handling pax at T2 when the TP was complete?
I would have thought the chances of easyjet with its 20+ based units joining ryanair in T3 (but using stands on pier B) were nil, even if the other sundry carriers currently in T3 move to T2.
So, does anyone know what the maximum annual throughput has been in T3? More importantly, what is the maximum hourly capacity and isn't that already reached at peak period?
If T3 is not feasible for easyjet, apart from moving to T2, the other option, as roverman suggests, is for T1 in whole or in part to remain open for a time. The quote "will also allow for the closure of T1" doesn't necessarily imply immediately. If they are to move to T2, there could be some long walks if flights were departing from stand 10 or 11 on pier B. Travelators anyone?
The other question raised is whether there will be enough contact stands on T2 for wide-bodies? Is it 5 or 6 contact stands on the eastern side of Pier 1?
As I understand it, pier 2, which is now going to be longer than the original planned shorter stub when there was going to be a pier3, will provide maximum flexibility in terms of wide and narrow bodied aircraft. What is the maximum number of wide bodies that could be accommodated at any one time if there were no smaller a/c parked there?
Of course, the demand for wide body contact stands will be spread to a degree but EK; EY; QR; CX; ET, 1 Chinese carrier, plus a couple of the earlier VS arrivals, EI and at least 2 TUI (and maybe Jet2 with A330s) could want contact stands in the same period. SQ are a little later and I don't think GF are wide bodies at present are they? It does look tight, especially if delays occur. And some of those carriers may not be too keen on remote parking.
I thought there was an interim plan to build a link from the end of T2, stand 201 area, across the IDLEX to pier C/pier B? This would keep T2 linked while T1 was demolished and the new T2 extension built. Has that now been canned?