Manchester-3
As outlined previously, I am in full agreement with those who opine that any major rebuild investment at MAN is 'off the table' for the foreseeable. My guess is that the T1/T3 complex will serve another twenty years at least in a very recognisable form.
My proposals are for changes which go only slightly beyond essential buildings care and maintenance in terms of overall costs. T1 and T3 are already physically linked together. The T2 TP (we were told) will offer capability for handling domestic flights. So let's move them over there - far better for interlining business anyway. This opens the way for T1 and T3 to be linked together as one facility airside very easily. The link corridor between the two (Southern Front) is already in place, but as a domestic facility must be kept sterile from international passengers. Once that need is removed, it is pretty much just a case of shifting afew barriers and opening doors. No major rebuild required for this particular task.
If I'm right that the T1 car park must come down anyway (life-expired structure) that leaves a large space available adjacent to the existing T1 entrance foyer. My suggestion here is for a cheap extension to accommodate more self check-in kiosks and baggage drops for departures and egates / baggage carousels for arrivals channels. Many will recall the "temporary bussing lounge" which was attached to the T2 structure during the TP extension build-out. This structure was (relatively) cheap to provide, but it was undercover, functional and adequate for the job it was intended for. An extension of this kind for the purposes described above is entirely 'doable' on a tight budget and sufficient for the needs of no-frills carriers. It also introduces the opportunity for operational cost savings, as if it provides sufficient passenger processing capacity it removes the need for the duplicated facilities currently serving standalone T3. Open up that former domestic corridor and all passengers could be processed through the T1 channels to the combined airside gates.
T1/T3 do feature a number of widebody-capable stands. I suspect that most of these are already marked out with L/R centrelines to accommodate two smaller types, but if T1/T3 were to become an overwhelmingly A320/B737 facility, stand layout could be optimised without need for large-scale investment. My post some days ago in which I suggested lobbying Sunak for a handout from the £4Bn regional infrastructure fund was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but - HEY - why not ask the question? There is nothing to lose by putting in an application. Those extra few parking stands would certainly be useful to have, though I personally don't hold out much hope for seeing them in the short-term.
But my suggestion to combine T1/T3 and to build an inexpensive foyer extension on the old car park footprint ought to be easily affordable. And perhaps removing the need for duplicated security and immigration formalities in T3 could repay the cost anyway.
I do think it is fair to presume that major terminal redevelopment is a goner for years to come post-covid. So cheap but practical changes plus some essential maintenance are the way things will need to go. Fortunately, no-frills carriers love that 'bus station' look!
My proposals are for changes which go only slightly beyond essential buildings care and maintenance in terms of overall costs. T1 and T3 are already physically linked together. The T2 TP (we were told) will offer capability for handling domestic flights. So let's move them over there - far better for interlining business anyway. This opens the way for T1 and T3 to be linked together as one facility airside very easily. The link corridor between the two (Southern Front) is already in place, but as a domestic facility must be kept sterile from international passengers. Once that need is removed, it is pretty much just a case of shifting afew barriers and opening doors. No major rebuild required for this particular task.
If I'm right that the T1 car park must come down anyway (life-expired structure) that leaves a large space available adjacent to the existing T1 entrance foyer. My suggestion here is for a cheap extension to accommodate more self check-in kiosks and baggage drops for departures and egates / baggage carousels for arrivals channels. Many will recall the "temporary bussing lounge" which was attached to the T2 structure during the TP extension build-out. This structure was (relatively) cheap to provide, but it was undercover, functional and adequate for the job it was intended for. An extension of this kind for the purposes described above is entirely 'doable' on a tight budget and sufficient for the needs of no-frills carriers. It also introduces the opportunity for operational cost savings, as if it provides sufficient passenger processing capacity it removes the need for the duplicated facilities currently serving standalone T3. Open up that former domestic corridor and all passengers could be processed through the T1 channels to the combined airside gates.
T1/T3 do feature a number of widebody-capable stands. I suspect that most of these are already marked out with L/R centrelines to accommodate two smaller types, but if T1/T3 were to become an overwhelmingly A320/B737 facility, stand layout could be optimised without need for large-scale investment. My post some days ago in which I suggested lobbying Sunak for a handout from the £4Bn regional infrastructure fund was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but - HEY - why not ask the question? There is nothing to lose by putting in an application. Those extra few parking stands would certainly be useful to have, though I personally don't hold out much hope for seeing them in the short-term.
But my suggestion to combine T1/T3 and to build an inexpensive foyer extension on the old car park footprint ought to be easily affordable. And perhaps removing the need for duplicated security and immigration formalities in T3 could repay the cost anyway.
I do think it is fair to presume that major terminal redevelopment is a goner for years to come post-covid. So cheap but practical changes plus some essential maintenance are the way things will need to go. Fortunately, no-frills carriers love that 'bus station' look!
Ozzy, if you wanted to expand low co check in on the cheap- you could always re-activate the existing check in desks in The station- along with d-i-y stations.
If 50% ish of easy & Ryanair could check in at the station, then you don't even need extra structures & it's a convenient bonus for the pax. Win win.
If 50% ish of easy & Ryanair could check in at the station, then you don't even need extra structures & it's a convenient bonus for the pax. Win win.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still charging to drop off and pick up.....I won't be using this airport unless it becomes much more user friendly.
Last edited by Baltic Skies; 29th Nov 2020 at 20:25. Reason: gramatical error
They're all going to do it. They're desperate for funds. Which airport are you going to use, or do you prefer to forego air travel going forward?
Or perhaps you could access the airport by bus / train / tram? No drop-off charge for those.
Or perhaps you could access the airport by bus / train / tram? No drop-off charge for those.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't be travelling by air for some time.
Rip off charges just discourage me even more.
I can afford it,but choose to boycott airports who exploit a captive market.
Plenty of options to enjoy myself,avoiding being fleeced,plenty of my associates feel the same.
Rip off charges just discourage me even more.
I can afford it,but choose to boycott airports who exploit a captive market.
Plenty of options to enjoy myself,avoiding being fleeced,plenty of my associates feel the same.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a real obsession among contributors, not just in MAN but elsewhere too, to make fantasy terminal reshuffles. Often these involve nicely boxing and categorising alliances and low cost/legacies/charter etc.
In the real world, this doesn't necessarily make sense. Low cost carriers don't necessarily "love" the bus station look. The "bus station look" was lead by the airports in a bid to woo low cost carriers. The LCC's don't explicitly want that. What they want is efficient turn arounds and infrastructure that support their operation. That is principally why they often (far from always) use steps.....so they can disembark and board faster. Incidentally, many airports don't charge for airbridge use, MAN is one such example.
There is also there mis-perception that the LCC passenger doesn't want much in the way of terminal facilities. That may have been true back at the start of the low cost revolution but it's far from the case in 2020. As someone alluded to earlier in the debate, the airline market has become much more homogenous. In other words, the passenger who uses Vueling to BCN or Norwegian to ARN are often the same passenger who uses SQ to SIN or LH to FRA. Their needs don't tend to change very much, if at all, with their change in carrier. Indeed, one of the reasons easyJet moved from T3 to T1 back in the early 10's was because passengers didn't particularly like the limited retail/leisure experience in T3 which, at the time, were quite limited. I should also mention that the plan is for easyJet to move to T2 in 2022, at least that was the plan pre-pandemic.
Its also worthwhile noting that from MAN certainly, you will find that it is the leisure traveller, often travelling on a LCC, that spend the most in the terminal.
In the real world, this doesn't necessarily make sense. Low cost carriers don't necessarily "love" the bus station look. The "bus station look" was lead by the airports in a bid to woo low cost carriers. The LCC's don't explicitly want that. What they want is efficient turn arounds and infrastructure that support their operation. That is principally why they often (far from always) use steps.....so they can disembark and board faster. Incidentally, many airports don't charge for airbridge use, MAN is one such example.
There is also there mis-perception that the LCC passenger doesn't want much in the way of terminal facilities. That may have been true back at the start of the low cost revolution but it's far from the case in 2020. As someone alluded to earlier in the debate, the airline market has become much more homogenous. In other words, the passenger who uses Vueling to BCN or Norwegian to ARN are often the same passenger who uses SQ to SIN or LH to FRA. Their needs don't tend to change very much, if at all, with their change in carrier. Indeed, one of the reasons easyJet moved from T3 to T1 back in the early 10's was because passengers didn't particularly like the limited retail/leisure experience in T3 which, at the time, were quite limited. I should also mention that the plan is for easyJet to move to T2 in 2022, at least that was the plan pre-pandemic.
Its also worthwhile noting that from MAN certainly, you will find that it is the leisure traveller, often travelling on a LCC, that spend the most in the terminal.
OK. You got me. I have outlined a "fantasy terminal reshuffle"!!! Guilty as charged. But FlyBe 1.0 - a major element of pre-covid T3 - has gone; the very substantial Thomas Cook Airlines operation has gone from T1; and certain visiting operators may not return ... we know of some service withdrawals already. So whether it aligns with our fantasies or not, change is coming in the real world.
The "fantasy" I went with actually arises from a recent rumour (which may or may not be true) that MAG proposed to offer Ryanair and EasyJet exclusive use of T1/T3 ... with the possible addition of Wizzair if they were to feature at MAN as well (they have requested slots). The important thing about a "fantasy reshuffle" is that there should be some logic underpinning it, such that it would offer a good outcome in reality. I would respectfully suggest that moving domestic traffic into T2 alongside the network carriers and operating T1/T3 as dedicated no-frills environment would achieve that. And the good news re T1 is that - despite its age - it is extremely well provisioned with retail and catering space airside.
Given that the post-covid economy makes a new-build facility highly unlikely in the medium term at MAN, T1/T3 will need to be part of the plan - maybe with some inexpensive modifications and TLC as I put forward. There may indeed be a better way than the option I proposed. But if you feel that you can offer us a better plan then please tell us about how you would like to see the campus reorganised (on a very tight budget) to best effect. All positive contributions to discussion welcome.
In T2, there likely is an opportunity to zone alliance carriers close together. If it can be done, why not? Where is the objection? Is a focal point for staffing, transfers and facilities such as lounges a bad thing?
BTW, that comment about the "bus station" is drawn from an interview with Michael O'Leary some years ago when he was objecting to airports building palatial facilities and expecting to pass the cost on to carriers. There is an element of dry humour there as one finds with many of his quotes, but an underlying truth too. Reliable, efficient budget facilities do tick the boxes for carriers in the Ryanair niche.
Finally, it may be the case that EasyJet favoured the retail environment in T1 over that offered in T3. But wasn't the real reason for the move that GB Airways in its Bland Group days was a franchise partner of BA (a T3 carrier) flying under the BA brand and it was appropriate to differentiate the new EasyJet ownership / focus from the carrier's previous heritage? And allow for growth well beyond what the GB model would ever have required?
The "fantasy" I went with actually arises from a recent rumour (which may or may not be true) that MAG proposed to offer Ryanair and EasyJet exclusive use of T1/T3 ... with the possible addition of Wizzair if they were to feature at MAN as well (they have requested slots). The important thing about a "fantasy reshuffle" is that there should be some logic underpinning it, such that it would offer a good outcome in reality. I would respectfully suggest that moving domestic traffic into T2 alongside the network carriers and operating T1/T3 as dedicated no-frills environment would achieve that. And the good news re T1 is that - despite its age - it is extremely well provisioned with retail and catering space airside.
Given that the post-covid economy makes a new-build facility highly unlikely in the medium term at MAN, T1/T3 will need to be part of the plan - maybe with some inexpensive modifications and TLC as I put forward. There may indeed be a better way than the option I proposed. But if you feel that you can offer us a better plan then please tell us about how you would like to see the campus reorganised (on a very tight budget) to best effect. All positive contributions to discussion welcome.
In T2, there likely is an opportunity to zone alliance carriers close together. If it can be done, why not? Where is the objection? Is a focal point for staffing, transfers and facilities such as lounges a bad thing?
BTW, that comment about the "bus station" is drawn from an interview with Michael O'Leary some years ago when he was objecting to airports building palatial facilities and expecting to pass the cost on to carriers. There is an element of dry humour there as one finds with many of his quotes, but an underlying truth too. Reliable, efficient budget facilities do tick the boxes for carriers in the Ryanair niche.
Finally, it may be the case that EasyJet favoured the retail environment in T1 over that offered in T3. But wasn't the real reason for the move that GB Airways in its Bland Group days was a franchise partner of BA (a T3 carrier) flying under the BA brand and it was appropriate to differentiate the new EasyJet ownership / focus from the carrier's previous heritage? And allow for growth well beyond what the GB model would ever have required?
Last edited by OzzyOzBorn; 30th Nov 2020 at 01:19.
To be fair, easyJet’s move from T3-T1 was some years after Bland sold GB. In fact, GB was one of the last bastions of international BA at MAN with BACON having been sold the previous year so I doubt it was to differentiate itself from the past. In actual fact, easyJet was offered T2 back then but ultimately Monarch made the move there and easy went to T1.
I get what businessair is saying in that the distinction between low cost/legacy/network has become blurred. For example, even easyJet offers connections, albeit not quite in the traditional sense.
Low cost is probably going to be the future of european short haul so carting them off to one part of the airport for the sake of uniformity might not make sense going forward.
You make good points about how the current crisis may hinder future redevelopment but if things start to resemble normality next summer who knows. What is certain is that T1 cannot continue for decades longer, it’s beyond sprucing up in many parts.
I get what businessair is saying in that the distinction between low cost/legacy/network has become blurred. For example, even easyJet offers connections, albeit not quite in the traditional sense.
Low cost is probably going to be the future of european short haul so carting them off to one part of the airport for the sake of uniformity might not make sense going forward.
You make good points about how the current crisis may hinder future redevelopment but if things start to resemble normality next summer who knows. What is certain is that T1 cannot continue for decades longer, it’s beyond sprucing up in many parts.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: bishops stortford herts
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Labour Mayor Joe in Liverpool & Labour Mayor Andy in Manchester & cemented affiliations/camaraderie can in reality any business/traffic grab happen from one airport t`other anyway?
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[SWBKCB
The City of Liverpool has shares in its airport. The Metro Mayor is actually Steve Rotherham. Joe Anderson is Mayor of The City of Liverpool Council. It is important that Liverpool Airport also has a variety of services for the City and the North West in general, if the Northen Powerhouse is to mean anything .
The City of Liverpool has shares in its airport. The Metro Mayor is actually Steve Rotherham. Joe Anderson is Mayor of The City of Liverpool Council. It is important that Liverpool Airport also has a variety of services for the City and the North West in general, if the Northen Powerhouse is to mean anything .
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2019
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are suggesting Manchester to grab all of Liverpools business ? Why would that even be a good idea for the NW ?
Carriers such as Ryanair, EasyJet and Wizzair are large Pan-European PLC's with no state ownership involvement. Local city region mayors have no role in dictating to them where they can and cannot operate. Even if they wanted to, it is unlikely that either (Manchester or Liverpool) mayors would wish to risk upsetting Ryanair or EasyJet - amongst the largest operators at both airports concerned. Wizzair does not currently base aircraft at either airport, but does operate a programme of visiting schedules at LPL.
Even in an unusual situation such as that we see at Teesside, the Mayor can offer incentive funds from his / her local budget to help attract new business to an airport. However, it is entirely at the discretion of the airline as to whether they want to take up the terms offered or not.
Even in an unusual situation such as that we see at Teesside, the Mayor can offer incentive funds from his / her local budget to help attract new business to an airport. However, it is entirely at the discretion of the airline as to whether they want to take up the terms offered or not.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was some mention that FR were keen on T3 because of the proximity to the runway, although if I recall Ryanair were a T2 tenant for many years? I suppose what is clear is that the original plans for MAN have changed a little, however much remains the same. The majority of departures are short-haul and concentrated on a few operators, the network airlines form a smaller part of the picture. With flyBe out of the picture, the main overnight/based aircraft are from easyJet, Ryanair, Jet2 & TUI. easyJet and Rayanir do use away based aircraft into MAN, so their pattern should be less prone to peaks and troughs than Jet2 and TUI who don't, typically.
MAN has been unlucky over the years, T3 was built for BA, who never used it as intended, it quickly grew far too small for its current use. I don't think many of us would argue that if it were to become 'the' Ryanair terminal that fewer check-in desks, a better located security area and more retail/seating ares would be ideal. I wonder if the current check-in hall could be used for security and the old flyBe check-in desk area, or the BA check-in be sufficient for Ryanair or Wizz? But if it were reconfigured may airlines might be interested, no cut-de-sac and near the operational runways. What's not to like?
MAN has been unlucky over the years, T3 was built for BA, who never used it as intended, it quickly grew far too small for its current use. I don't think many of us would argue that if it were to become 'the' Ryanair terminal that fewer check-in desks, a better located security area and more retail/seating ares would be ideal. I wonder if the current check-in hall could be used for security and the old flyBe check-in desk area, or the BA check-in be sufficient for Ryanair or Wizz? But if it were reconfigured may airlines might be interested, no cut-de-sac and near the operational runways. What's not to like?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OzzyOzBorn
There is obviously this rumour about Ryanair and Easyjet being offered exclusive use of T1/T3, however true it may be, but I just don't see that MAG see the existing T1 building as forming part of the future solution. The next priorities for the TP were going to be the refurb of the existing T2, and the completion of Pier 2. The reality is that there's no money at the moment, but if any does become available, I'd think they'll get far more bang for their buck by advancing the plans that are already in place. My understanding was that the scale of what was proposed for the T2 refurb was fairly substantial - I'd expect to see that scaled back, but some sort of viable solution to have the constituent parts of T2 operate as a single facility to be achieved. T2 (or certainly the new build section) is pretty well set up for bussing passengers now, and as businessair75 mentioned above, it seems that the plan was for EZY (along with the other remaining T1 tenants) to move over to T2 in the next 18 months or so anyway. Probably a (the?) big sticking point of this is that the T2 refurb would've been based on an expansion of retail in that area, which I'd think would be difficult to achieve without the substantial works that were proposed, and thus they'd be losing out on retail revenue by closing T1.
I do see the merit in what you're suggesting but I think that if T1 does survive for the time being then it's very likely to be, more or less, in its existing format, as opposed to with any substantial changes.
There is obviously this rumour about Ryanair and Easyjet being offered exclusive use of T1/T3, however true it may be, but I just don't see that MAG see the existing T1 building as forming part of the future solution. The next priorities for the TP were going to be the refurb of the existing T2, and the completion of Pier 2. The reality is that there's no money at the moment, but if any does become available, I'd think they'll get far more bang for their buck by advancing the plans that are already in place. My understanding was that the scale of what was proposed for the T2 refurb was fairly substantial - I'd expect to see that scaled back, but some sort of viable solution to have the constituent parts of T2 operate as a single facility to be achieved. T2 (or certainly the new build section) is pretty well set up for bussing passengers now, and as businessair75 mentioned above, it seems that the plan was for EZY (along with the other remaining T1 tenants) to move over to T2 in the next 18 months or so anyway. Probably a (the?) big sticking point of this is that the T2 refurb would've been based on an expansion of retail in that area, which I'd think would be difficult to achieve without the substantial works that were proposed, and thus they'd be losing out on retail revenue by closing T1.
I do see the merit in what you're suggesting but I think that if T1 does survive for the time being then it's very likely to be, more or less, in its existing format, as opposed to with any substantial changes.