Manchester-3
However un practical B pier is today, it wasn’t exactly the pre-fab but more architecture of its 1960’s day.
RE: A380’s, we have stand 12 which is utilitarian admittedly. If it comes to pass, the QR 380 is unexpected. The A380 isn’t the prolific beast many thought it would be. Even on a QR level, nobody expected them to bring the A380 back into service so quickly, if at all. Even so, Qatar are on the record as saying buying the 380 was a strategic mistake.
The 380 at MAN will see QR potentially offering F on the route incidentally.
RE: A380’s, we have stand 12 which is utilitarian admittedly. If it comes to pass, the QR 380 is unexpected. The A380 isn’t the prolific beast many thought it would be. Even on a QR level, nobody expected them to bring the A380 back into service so quickly, if at all. Even so, Qatar are on the record as saying buying the 380 was a strategic mistake.
The 380 at MAN will see QR potentially offering F on the route incidentally.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't worry about an influx of A380’s. Not going to happen.
Wonder if Scoot on a double drop would be of interest at MAN given we were told of the gaping hole that is BKK, and pending Thai route over the years.
Wonder if Scoot on a double drop would be of interest at MAN given we were told of the gaping hole that is BKK, and pending Thai route over the years.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are any of the current T2 stands (legacy & new) compatible for the A380?
Could the QR A380 not go on a T2 airbridge stand for attachment at door L2 and then steps for L1/L4/L5??
Could the QR A380 not go on a T2 airbridge stand for attachment at door L2 and then steps for L1/L4/L5??
Boarding a narrow body like that is one thing (and quite efficient actually) but I imagine it’s a nightmare for a widebody the size of an A380.
I might be wrong but I don’t think any contact stands are compatible with the exception of stand 12 in T1.
I might be wrong but I don’t think any contact stands are compatible with the exception of stand 12 in T1.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed…airbridge and stairs or just stairs at both front and rear doors can be more efficient.
This can only be done though on pier B in T1 and the T3 stands.
I know Pier 3 is going to be used more for wide body, but wouldn’t it have been more efficient to add double airbridge’s on some of the stands on Pier 1…as per most if the stands on Pier C in T1…
This can only be done though on pier B in T1 and the T3 stands.
I know Pier 3 is going to be used more for wide body, but wouldn’t it have been more efficient to add double airbridge’s on some of the stands on Pier 1…as per most if the stands on Pier C in T1…
Unfortunately, at the time Pier 1 was constructed, MAG's plans never envisaged the covid catastrophe which has placed all further T2 rebuild work in the freezer till further notice. Piers 1 and 3 were both part of the medium-term vision, with each playing a slightly different role. Now, the airport must make the best of what it ended up with when the music stopped. With a 'glass half full' perspective, MAN is darned lucky that the main Terminal 2 extension and Pier 1 were completed just in time (though MAG's accountants might disagree). I don't know when / if construction of Pier 3 will progress (any input on this welcome), but it is wise to be braced for a very long wait. MAG isn't noted for spending freely at the best of times.
On the matter of the Qatar A388 schedule, it remains to be seen whether this happens or for what duration if it does. The airline is in dispute with Airbus over alleged rapidly deteriorating paintwork on a number of A350's which have been grounded in consequence. Until this is resolved, it means allocating other types to cover some routes (note that not all of the A350 fleet is affected). Once the A350 fleet is fully returned to service, cover from the A388 to MAN may not be required. Keep in mind that Qatar Airways has a large fleet of B77W's as well as A350's available, and DOH-MAN is a 3 x Daily route (covid aside). The additional capacity implied by running one of those flights as an A388 isn't a huge step-up.
On the matter of the Qatar A388 schedule, it remains to be seen whether this happens or for what duration if it does. The airline is in dispute with Airbus over alleged rapidly deteriorating paintwork on a number of A350's which have been grounded in consequence. Until this is resolved, it means allocating other types to cover some routes (note that not all of the A350 fleet is affected). Once the A350 fleet is fully returned to service, cover from the A388 to MAN may not be required. Keep in mind that Qatar Airways has a large fleet of B77W's as well as A350's available, and DOH-MAN is a 3 x Daily route (covid aside). The additional capacity implied by running one of those flights as an A388 isn't a huge step-up.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until this is resolved, it means allocating other types to cover some routes (note that not all of the A350 fleet is affected). Once the A350 fleet is fully returned to service, cover from the A388 to MAN may not be required. Keep in mind that Qatar Airways has a large fleet of B77W's as well as A350's available, and DOH-MAN is a 3 x Daily route (covid aside). The additional capacity implied by running one of those flights as an A388 isn't a huge step-up.[/QUOTE]
Yes, of course, no one could have predicted what was going to happen.
My question is though, why weren’t double airbridge’s considered on Pier 1 during the planning stages, at least on the side where the widebody stands are located. From the original plans I notice there are only to be 2 double airbridge stands on Pier 3 when that materialises…
Pier C in T1 has plenty…yes they were handy years ago when widebody’s used to dominate T1, I just thought it was odd given how more efficient the boarding and de-boarding could be…hindsight hey, a wonderful thing!
But yes, we are where we are and are lucky to have so many destinations served from a regional airport!
Hopefully there will be justification for MAG to get back into the original plan in the medium term…because like you say, they aren’t big spenders at the best of times!
Yes, of course, no one could have predicted what was going to happen.
My question is though, why weren’t double airbridge’s considered on Pier 1 during the planning stages, at least on the side where the widebody stands are located. From the original plans I notice there are only to be 2 double airbridge stands on Pier 3 when that materialises…
Pier C in T1 has plenty…yes they were handy years ago when widebody’s used to dominate T1, I just thought it was odd given how more efficient the boarding and de-boarding could be…hindsight hey, a wonderful thing!
But yes, we are where we are and are lucky to have so many destinations served from a regional airport!
Hopefully there will be justification for MAG to get back into the original plan in the medium term…because like you say, they aren’t big spenders at the best of times!
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this online from https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/up...ration-S22.pdf
Manchester Airport proposes to amend adhoc/in-season terminal capacity in early 2022 to reflect the proving of T2 Extension. This will see an increase in T2 capacity linked to airline moves, with total capacity controlled by a shadow limit equivalent to the combined historic demand of future T2 airlines plus a small allowance for flexibility. This overarching cap will mean that as T2 capacity increases, T1 capacity will reduce. This reflects the long term "ManTP" Airport Transformation Programme which will increase the capacity of T2, but ultimately close T1
Manchester Airport proposes to amend adhoc/in-season terminal capacity in early 2022 to reflect the proving of T2 Extension. This will see an increase in T2 capacity linked to airline moves, with total capacity controlled by a shadow limit equivalent to the combined historic demand of future T2 airlines plus a small allowance for flexibility. This overarching cap will mean that as T2 capacity increases, T1 capacity will reduce. This reflects the long term "ManTP" Airport Transformation Programme which will increase the capacity of T2, but ultimately close T1
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you're talking about widebodies more generally, but specific to the A380, the only real game in town has been Emirates. Them moving over to T2 also means having their lounge in place, along with any other requirements they have. That wasn't planned as part of the first phase (presumably with the agreement of EK) and therefore it wouldn't have made sense to have such provision on Pier 1. I suspect that EK, and the likes of EY and QR, would have a preference to not operate out of Pier 1 anyway, given the walking distance - the planned Pier 3 being much closer to the main body of the terminal.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was involved in the planning stages of MAN-TP prior to my retirement last year.. There was much consultation around the distribution of gates across the proposed 4 piers and the stand configurations to provide the greatest flexibility across a wide range of aircraft types and airline preferences. The designated A380 pier and the pier build sequence changed a few times as design development matured. With regard to the proivision of double bridges it was agreed with the airlines that the benefits of two-bridge boarding did not outweigh the limitations this placed on a flexible multi-choice apron for a mix of narrow and wide body types. The parked position of the extra airbridge constrains the number of centrelines you can fit on to any specific stand block. Furthermore, you really need two gate doors as well as two bridges to get the full benefit on boarding times - something which not only adds cost but complicates the design of the interior of the pier.. The exception is at A380-specific gates where there's a need to service the upper deck, that is where the double-airbridge and second gate door really benefit. Hence the decision to provide double bridges at A380 gates only, and on one pier only. The Pier C double bridges are a legacy dating back to the 1970s/80s.
That's interesting, I know that at LHR T2 / T3/ T5 and at GLA, the A380 gates are on the centreline with narrow bodied B737/A320 stands on Left and Right lines. At LHR both L/R can be airbridge serviced independently with different doors used for boarding L/R. Not quite sure how two bridge boading is an impediment if it's common usage at other airports with narrow bodies? I suspect 555 at LGW is also flexible that way although I haven't been airside since it was rebuilt for the A380.
Last edited by Skipness One Foxtrot; 17th Nov 2021 at 18:38.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In planning the stand layout we of course studied what had been done at :LHR T5 and used consultants who had worked on that project, with a view to adopting proven good practice (aka copying!). One of the constraints at MAN-TP is that we were (are) building onto an existing apron which had been designed to work with a frontage at 90 degrees to the new one (old T2 western pier). This created a complex 3D challenge to resolve the levels between aircraft sill height, working right back to through the airbridge, gate door, and pier to the terminal building whilst complying with various regulatory requirements on gradients. The more usual case such as at LHR T5 is a coordinated blank sheet design with no pre-existing apron levels. At MAN this legacy translated into lateral constraints at the head of stand, and so in the interface between aircarft and terminal.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Manchester
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates still haven't re-opened their lounge in T1, despite having 2xA380 per day (plus a B777 some days). Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think some of their outstation lounges may not re-open, as per EY.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really interesting post and gives a bit more speech to the conversation of “they did it at T5, MAG couldn’t be bothered”. More of this kind of post please!
There is one thing at MAN that really drives me mad. Its not the duty free parade or the gate areas. It is the constant shouting from MAG staff at Security and also Border Control queues. The culture seems to be shout at the passengers rather than talk, sometimes its about trays, hats, coats, belts, having passports open, where to queue, but its constant and very unpleasant. It is also unnecessary and gives the impression that jobsworths are on a power trip. Its really a marked contrast to other airports around the world where shouting is the exception rather than a KPI.
There is one thing at MAN that really drives me mad. Its not the duty free parade or the gate areas. It is the constant shouting from MAG staff at Security and also Border Control queues. The culture seems to be shout at the passengers rather than talk, sometimes its about trays, hats, coats, belts, having passports open, where to queue, but its constant and very unpleasant. It is also unnecessary and gives the impression that jobsworths are on a power trip. Its really a marked contrast to other airports around the world where shouting is the exception rather than a KPI.