Manchester-3
Talking of bussing, I was bussed from ET-AWN / ETH728 to T2 arrivals this morning. I have to say that it was a pretty good experience too. We came out quite close to UK border (I've done the long trek from A12 previously from another carrier). UK Border was quiet, and baggage was already on the carousel when we came through. Nothing wrong with any of that from my perspective. Other passengers seemed quite happy too.
Zero hours contracts? Good grief, it's an international airport with large revenue streams, give people decent contracts and remuneration for goodness sake!
Where are you going to park all these busses? Are we going green so will need charging infrastructure installed for electric vehicles.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here's me thinking that the race to the bottom was complete.
Zero hours contracts? Good grief, it's an international airport with large revenue streams, give people decent contracts and remuneration for goodness sake!
Where are you going to park all these busses? Are we going green so will need charging infrastructure installed for electric vehicles.
Zero hours contracts? Good grief, it's an international airport with large revenue streams, give people decent contracts and remuneration for goodness sake!
Where are you going to park all these busses? Are we going green so will need charging infrastructure installed for electric vehicles.
Last point first yes a charging pen with top pantographs ideal,
As for parking you do realise the things have wheels and rotate round the estate , Airport buses are often heavily weighted to standing passengers and indeed bendi/ articulated vehicles are favoured for the very short trips . Not like you need a fleet of hundred is it .
Evening parking take them off of the estate to a shed somewhere in Wythenshawe / Sharston/ or Warrington seems eminently reasonable
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Going any wider than the spacing that exists would have meant filling in the Bollin Valley along some of its length in National Trust land and planning permission would never have been obtained.
The issue of runway crossings was modelled into the capacity assumptions and was discussed at some length at the Public Inquiry.
Last edited by Suzeman; 24th Mar 2024 at 22:06.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 836
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly the configuration you suggest does not fit with ICAO SOIR (Simultaneous Operations on Independent Runways) Mode 4 regulations . This because we had to reduce the width between centre lines below the 760m that would allow this, due to the proximity of the Bollin Valley to the south and therefore stagger the thresholds (which is permitted under the regulations), but you must always land on the nearest threshold to the direction of approach. This is to make the go-around procedures to work safely.
Going any wider than the spacing that exists would have meant filling in the Bollin Valley along some of its length in National Trust land and planning permission would never have been obtained.
The issue of runway crossings was modelled into the capacity assumptions and was discussed at some length at the Public Inquiry.
Going any wider than the spacing that exists would have meant filling in the Bollin Valley along some of its length in National Trust land and planning permission would never have been obtained.
The issue of runway crossings was modelled into the capacity assumptions and was discussed at some length at the Public Inquiry.
Still it remains the the outer runway displacement aside ideally should be the landing strip, indeed demonstrating the point on the 05s traffic flows and ground conflicts virtually disappear
I note that SPD_Travels on 'X' reports that MAN has been unable to accommodate a proposed transit-stop service by Bangladesh Biman since it's arrival would fall within the night quota for movements. Stand availability could be a consideration too.
But this has got me thinking ... again! When were night movements policies last reviewed seriously both nationally, and at MAN specifically? The stated reason given for night movement restrictions is to accommodate the interests of neighbours ... ie. to keep the noise down. But hang on a minute ... I am one of MAN's closest neighbours (and I mean REALLY bloomin' close!) and I cannot EVER recall being asked what my views on noise policies actually are. There just seems to be some invisible busybodies spouting off somewhere, allegedly purporting to "represent" neighbours like me, pushing an agenda of gesture-based restrictions and nimbyism. We neighbours are just presumed to not want planes around ... period. Well, that may be true of some, but very far from all. I don't know anyone in my neighbourhood whose residency here predates the airport. We know the area, we knew what we were moving into. And most of us LOVE IT. No aspirations to move away at all. You would be amazed how many seemingly unlikely neighbours ask me what that 'unusual plane' was which arrived afew hours ago. The airport is a source of interest and employment opportunities for many around here. Quite afew of them are keen avgeeks too!
When I moved here 36 years ago, night movements were BAC 1-11's, Boeing 737-200's, Boeing 727's, VC-10's and Tridents. Noisy beasts. But ALL LONG GONE. And I didn't even mind them back then anyway! But since then, we have generations of new types which are not only vastly quieter, but which also climb out steeply leaving a negligible noise footprint behind at surface. And the airlines' reward for introducing these types? Pretty much nothing ... same draconian noise quotas as before.
I know that touching on this subject will draw angry criticism from some quarters, but it really is time to rethink all this nonsense. Firstly, why are inbounds restricted at all? Noise from these wouldn't wake anyone who doesn't have other issues. And for departures, no allowance seems to be made for airlines which have invested in using the newest, quietest types at MAN. Rather than having an indiscriminate night quota, I (as one of THE most directly affected) would much prefer to shift to a regime where newer quieter types are exempted from night noise restrictions altogether, leaving penalties to affect only the older noisier types. Firstly, I don't see any need for noise quotas on arrivals at all. I would propose exemptions for all departing props, A320neo family, B737-MAX family, B787, A350, and later A330 and B777 models amongst others. This incentivises airlines to replace their older models leaving an all-round improved environment at MAN. It could make a real positive difference. Luddite gestures don't deliver that. Along this line of thought, it is interesting that in response to the illogical movements cap impeding expansion at DUB, Michael O' Leary has pledged to base only his older B737-8AS models there. Quite right too ... good for him!
On other matters noise-related, MAN also has historic bans on training flights and military PD's. Why? Supposedly to protect ME and other near neighbours from the 'inconvenience' they allegedly cause. My answer (since they've NEVER actually asked me) is NOT IN MY NAME, thanks very much. I believe that we should SUPPORT our RAF and NATO allies, not ban them. And I have no objection to new pilots learning the finer details of flying into MAN. Put out the welcome signs as far as I'm concerned.
This very close neighbour (and many more like me) welcomes the prospect of MAN maximising business and employment opportunities for the region by attracting airline business to the maximum extent achievable. So let's ditch archaic rules inspired by VC-10's and Tridents and adapt to a world filled with quiet, high climb-rate modern aircraft types. No damaging illogical quotas in my name, please. Incentivise the accelerated adoption of new quieter types using MAN instead. Including B789's of Bangladesh Biman, or any other carrier minded to enhance prosperity for this region. Thanks!
But this has got me thinking ... again! When were night movements policies last reviewed seriously both nationally, and at MAN specifically? The stated reason given for night movement restrictions is to accommodate the interests of neighbours ... ie. to keep the noise down. But hang on a minute ... I am one of MAN's closest neighbours (and I mean REALLY bloomin' close!) and I cannot EVER recall being asked what my views on noise policies actually are. There just seems to be some invisible busybodies spouting off somewhere, allegedly purporting to "represent" neighbours like me, pushing an agenda of gesture-based restrictions and nimbyism. We neighbours are just presumed to not want planes around ... period. Well, that may be true of some, but very far from all. I don't know anyone in my neighbourhood whose residency here predates the airport. We know the area, we knew what we were moving into. And most of us LOVE IT. No aspirations to move away at all. You would be amazed how many seemingly unlikely neighbours ask me what that 'unusual plane' was which arrived afew hours ago. The airport is a source of interest and employment opportunities for many around here. Quite afew of them are keen avgeeks too!
When I moved here 36 years ago, night movements were BAC 1-11's, Boeing 737-200's, Boeing 727's, VC-10's and Tridents. Noisy beasts. But ALL LONG GONE. And I didn't even mind them back then anyway! But since then, we have generations of new types which are not only vastly quieter, but which also climb out steeply leaving a negligible noise footprint behind at surface. And the airlines' reward for introducing these types? Pretty much nothing ... same draconian noise quotas as before.
I know that touching on this subject will draw angry criticism from some quarters, but it really is time to rethink all this nonsense. Firstly, why are inbounds restricted at all? Noise from these wouldn't wake anyone who doesn't have other issues. And for departures, no allowance seems to be made for airlines which have invested in using the newest, quietest types at MAN. Rather than having an indiscriminate night quota, I (as one of THE most directly affected) would much prefer to shift to a regime where newer quieter types are exempted from night noise restrictions altogether, leaving penalties to affect only the older noisier types. Firstly, I don't see any need for noise quotas on arrivals at all. I would propose exemptions for all departing props, A320neo family, B737-MAX family, B787, A350, and later A330 and B777 models amongst others. This incentivises airlines to replace their older models leaving an all-round improved environment at MAN. It could make a real positive difference. Luddite gestures don't deliver that. Along this line of thought, it is interesting that in response to the illogical movements cap impeding expansion at DUB, Michael O' Leary has pledged to base only his older B737-8AS models there. Quite right too ... good for him!
On other matters noise-related, MAN also has historic bans on training flights and military PD's. Why? Supposedly to protect ME and other near neighbours from the 'inconvenience' they allegedly cause. My answer (since they've NEVER actually asked me) is NOT IN MY NAME, thanks very much. I believe that we should SUPPORT our RAF and NATO allies, not ban them. And I have no objection to new pilots learning the finer details of flying into MAN. Put out the welcome signs as far as I'm concerned.
This very close neighbour (and many more like me) welcomes the prospect of MAN maximising business and employment opportunities for the region by attracting airline business to the maximum extent achievable. So let's ditch archaic rules inspired by VC-10's and Tridents and adapt to a world filled with quiet, high climb-rate modern aircraft types. No damaging illogical quotas in my name, please. Incentivise the accelerated adoption of new quieter types using MAN instead. Including B789's of Bangladesh Biman, or any other carrier minded to enhance prosperity for this region. Thanks!
Wow! Just Wow!
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.
Thanks Turin. Knew I could rely on you for an instant opposing point of view! 😁
Your throwback luddite inclinations reflect a proportion of public opinion, but you are mistaken in citing "everyone else". That's the point! Too many make generalised rash assumptions as you have done.
And the reason I didn't say what you wrote is because that was not my message. Perhaps it is what you wish my message had been?
Why do you dislike Bangladesh Biman?
Your throwback luddite inclinations reflect a proportion of public opinion, but you are mistaken in citing "everyone else". That's the point! Too many make generalised rash assumptions as you have done.
And the reason I didn't say what you wrote is because that was not my message. Perhaps it is what you wish my message had been?
Why do you dislike Bangladesh Biman?
Last edited by OzzyOzBorn; 26th Mar 2024 at 04:36.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well we are not seeing the back of Biman, the transit possibility was an addition to their existing service.
The transit service would have arrived before the first morning departure, a time we are all fully aware that there's not a single stand available. Move it back a bit to 7 or 8am and it would have been fine.
The transit service would have arrived before the first morning departure, a time we are all fully aware that there's not a single stand available. Move it back a bit to 7 or 8am and it would have been fine.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's true that there is no stand availability that is a failiure firmly rooted with previous management. Whichever way you cut this its a missed revenue opportunity.
Ethiopian and now Biman , don't mention Jet2.
Ethiopian and now Biman , don't mention Jet2.
Last edited by Navpi; 26th Mar 2024 at 09:55.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! Just Wow!
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.
Why didn't you just say "I like to look at aeroplanes and everyone else, regardless of their opinions can go hang?"
I live well away from the airport, over 15 miles away, but I still would not want more night time air traffic.
Even the most modern aircraft are too noisy.
As for Biman, I'd be glad to see the back of them to be honest.
Is this an early April fools joke?!
How the hell do you work that out!!
Live under an airport approach path. I do and can't tell the difference between a 738 and a MAX, or a 320 and a NEO. Yes, people will comment on an 'interesting' aircraft, but that doesn't mean they want a stream of them over their head at 06.00.
