Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Manchester-3

Old 5th Jan 2022, 00:09
  #1021 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not so many places currently
Age: 58
Posts: 2,932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ara01jbb View Post
F-OVAA departed MAN around 21.45 but is now circling over Norfolk. Seen on FR24.
And now South of the Hold at Dieppe at FL90 around the Rouen area. CDG runways must be as long if not longer than MAN so does it really need to burn more fuel off?
Probably paperwork now wrong as the flight has been spoilt with touching UK soil. Choice words with Ops & handling agent no doubt going on.

Last edited by pabely; 5th Jan 2022 at 00:30.
pabely is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 00:28
  #1022 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
QUOTE: With a quick look at the ACL scheduling parameters for Summer 2022, you would know that two runway operation will be back for the season

Yes, I have seen the ACL report. And I know that is the plan.

But as you know, proposed schedules evolve significantly between January and start-of-summer even in a normal year. What few foresaw this time was that the UK and mainstream destinations on the Continent would reimpose strict covid-rules on travel which are likely to serve as a major drag on confidence during the January to March peak booking period for S22 leisure travel. If bookings come in at a substantially depressed pace over the next ten weeks or so, operators will have to make crucial strategic decisions concerning how much unsold capacity they're prepared to carry into the season - hoping for late bookings which may never come. For some operators, making the right call on this may be a matter of corporate survival.

And it is not just the leisure-focused operators we need to worry about. If business and long-haul travel come back more slowly than hoped, we will see reductions in planned frequencies on these routes too.

I'm sure most here hope that bookings for S22 flow in at a healthy pace, but I'm far from convinced that will happen. I personally know lots of people who are booking nothing yet, awaiting more clarity. If we enter a period of major consolidation, airports including MAN will need to reconsider how much demand they need to cater for in the months ahead. Plans may have to be changed. I hope not, but we'd be foolish to dismiss the possibility.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 01:28
  #1023 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: London
Age: 41
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They're not closing the second runway in the medium term. It's not being mothballed. It's not ideal for parking as if you need the aircraft in the middle it's a nightmare to get to it as you have to move everyone else to tow it clear. Runway 2 is not blessed with exits the full length which I suspect would help. There's enough to worry about without actively looking for drama.
Skipness One Foxtrot is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 02:17
  #1024 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They're not closing the second runway in the medium term. It's not being mothballed.
Actually, the second runway is closed now and has been for many months. The question is when does it reopen. The plan for that is start of season S22, but that was based on very optimistic scheduling put in place before assorted governments threw travel barriers back up. You won't be surprised to learn that I hope it will reopen then, as planned. But I don't think we can safely presume anything at this stage. We need to see the effect covid uncertainty has on air travel bookings. And it would be very helpful to see the worst restrictions (especially expensive C-19 testing) dropped in the near term. There are some hopeful developments on this, with HMG withdrawing the need for pre-departure tests, and Germany ending its ban on UK travellers. But we still have a long way to go.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 05:34
  #1025 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 63
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Skipness One Foxtrot View Post
They're not closing the second runway in the medium term. It's not being mothballed. It's not ideal for parking as if you need the aircraft in the middle it's a nightmare to get to it as you have to move everyone else to tow it clear. Runway 2 is not blessed with exits the full length which I suspect would help. There's enough to worry about without actively looking for drama.
Just to be clear I'm absolutely not advocating the use of RW2 now in any other capacity than the actual use for which it was intended.

For clarity my point was a missed opportunity and it's possible utilisation for parking 18 months ago, this was at a time when the aviation industry and air travel was absolutely paralysed and there was a need to absolutely maximise revenues as indeed other airports did.

Many airports had units double parked in a manner not suited to day to day operations but at the time nothing was flying !


Navpi is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 05:38
  #1026 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 63
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BA318 View Post
There are all sorts of problems though. The pax don’t have PLF or compliance with UK regulations/visa requirements for some. Apparently it was heading back to CDG, then had a tech issue, requested to go back to MAN a second time but they said no they only accept medical divert so then seems to be going to CDG at 9000ft.
Whilst i appreciate I'm no fan of the blanket NO DIV policy i cannot believe given the circumstances that Man would not have allowed this back in had the crew requested this.

A tech issue could soon become an emergency so i think its safe to assume even MAN would not have been so robust in it's implementation.

I assumed it headed East to a quieter area of airspace to dump fuel for a lighter landing at CDG , a descent to 9000ft and subsequent holding would however suggest pressurisation issues.

Looking at the timing of posts here it was nigh on a 3 hour transit so not great for the passengers.




Last edited by Navpi; 5th Jan 2022 at 08:20.
Navpi is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 08:04
  #1027 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just a point , even when aircraft are stored they still have to move to stop breaks sticking, tyres getting out of shape and as you probably noticed over last couple of years aircraft were
flown on circuits quite regularly by Jet2,TUI, Easy and Virgin so need to parked where they could be got at even the TUI MAXs moved and had the engines started
Runway 23L has been used when maintenance was done on 23R and in a few emergency situations.
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 08:23
  #1028 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 63
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chaps1954 View Post
Just a point , even when aircraft are stored they still have to move to stop breaks sticking, tyres getting out of shape and as you probably noticed over last couple of years aircraft were
flown on circuits quite regularly by Jet2,TUI, Easy and Virgin so need to parked where they could be got at even the TUI MAXs moved and had the engines started
Runway 23L has been used when maintenance was done on 23R and in a few emergency situations.
chaps1954 agreed although i genuinely don't know how smaller airports managed.

Apart from an opportunity to generate income i genuinely don't know how airports with a fraction of the infastructure handled this.


https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/ne...planes-parked/

Footnote the crew member involved in yesterdays incident is safe and in hospital, so great news on that score.

Last edited by Navpi; 5th Jan 2022 at 09:16.
Navpi is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 09:18
  #1029 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Bournemouth used its two disused runways and associated taxiways for storage.
AndrewH52 is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2022, 11:48
  #1030 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Navpi You would not believe how little space is actually available. Most nights involve night parking for 80+ resident aircraft and night stopping.
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 09:41
  #1031 (permalink)  
DP.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by chaps1954 View Post
You would not believe how little space is actually available.
I concur. The critical comments about the NO DIV policy pre-dating the pandemic are a little disingenuous. As I recall, that really came into being during the TP, when there was significant constraints on both stands and taxiways due WIP. There was fairly substantial airfield reconfiguration work planned additional to what has already been completed, but of course we don't know when that may now come to pass. When Pier 2 is constructed, that is almost certainly going to create another logistical challenge around stand availability.
DP. is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 10:55
  #1032 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Those pointing out the number of based aircraft which park overnight are missing the point. The 'no div' discussion is not about accepting all diversion requests at all times, regardless of existing business. It is about operating a flexible DYNAMIC diversion policy (as most other airports do). That allows complete discretion to turn away likely nightstoppers, or anything else which is an identified problem, whilst accepting diversions which can be accommodated at quieter times. And there ARE quiet times across the course of the day. Also, the blunt 'no divs' policy by default excludes the likes of executive jets which tend not to impact main apron availability at all. This is why decisions on a case-by-case basis is called for. Not every diversion is a widebody with a crew going out of hours.

Rest assured that those who put the case for a dynamic diversion policy are well aware of overnight apron usage volumes.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 11:09
  #1033 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by DP. View Post
I concur. The critical comments about the NO DIV policy pre-dating the pandemic are a little disingenuous. As I recall, that really came into being during the TP, when there was significant constraints on both stands and taxiways due WIP.
That's not correct. I think it was the winter of 2009/10 that I first recall seeing the notam at a time when there was quite a bit of snow around the country. Even when our own runways and taxiways had been cleared, MAN's reputation as the airport that likes to say No, if it was already established, was enhanced. An airport manager acknowledged there had been criticism and that things had not been handled as well as they might. To be fair, the approach the following winter was much more positive. It was the year when LHR was shut for nearly 4 days after 4" of snow and ice, and MAN accepted quite a few wide-body diversions from LHR and LGW as soon those airports first closed. There were more in the days following but one or two carriers actually re-flight planned to MAN when LHR was still closed - CX was one such airline.

The notam has appeared fairly regularly since then for varying periods before the pandemic.
MANFOD is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 11:36
  #1034 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northumberland
Posts: 7,123
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Not every diversion is a widebody with a crew going out of hours.
No - but there is always that risk. I would imagine that whether it's Ad hoc freighters or diversions the issue is predictabilty, and we all know that these flights have a greater tendency not to go to plan. MAN does take extra flights - football flights for example - but there is a higher liklihood of them coming and going when you expect them to.
SWBKCB is online now  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 12:03
  #1035 (permalink)  
DP.
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MANFOD View Post
That's not correct. I think it was the winter of 2009/10 that I first recall seeing the notam at a time when there was quite a bit of snow around the country. Even when our own runways and taxiways had been cleared, MAN's reputation as the airport that likes to say No, if it was already established, was enhanced. An airport manager acknowledged there had been criticism and that things had not been handled as well as they might. To be fair, the approach the following winter was much more positive. It was the year when LHR was shut for nearly 4 days after 4" of snow and ice, and MAN accepted quite a few wide-body diversions from LHR and LGW as soon those airports first closed. There were more in the days following but one or two carriers actually re-flight planned to MAN when LHR was still closed - CX was one such airline.

The notam has appeared fairly regularly since then for varying periods before the pandemic.
That's a fair point. I didn't mean to suggest that it had never happened previously, but it certainly became more of a 'standing item' following the commencement of the TP works.
DP. is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 12:30
  #1036 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No - but there is always that risk.
But that's just it. There isn't always that risk. In some cases, the risk of the aircraft compromising the airport operation is negligible. One recent example being a Jet2 B738 which departed on a positioning flight MAN-LBA, couldn't get in, and was denied approval to return to MAN based upon the 'no divs' notam. It is quite likely that this particular aircraft would have found an available stand anyway, but even if not, Jet2 have their own hangar compound at MAN where a surplus aircraft could wait out congestion. And a diverted Citation poses little risk of stitching up the airport. Every diversion request comes with its own profile, and in many cases they present negligible risk to the smooth operation of the airport. Retaining the flexibility to approve these is logical. If a request comes in from a widebody which risks compromising the operation comes in, that is the time to say no. No need to give the same answer to everything else by default.

Football charters are a quite different conversation. They are known traffic for between three weeks and two months ahead (dependent on when the match draw is made). Their timings are based on a reliable schedule (extra-time at the stadium notwithstanding). They're included in the main stand-allocation and staffing plan well ahead of time. Like charters for a business conference or an exhibition, they're a known quantity and don't require a last-minute decision.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 13:00
  #1037 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: 2DME
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was a Ryanair flight, not Jet2.
AndrewH52 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 13:38
  #1038 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Manchester, England
Age: 57
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn View Post
But that's just it. There isn't always that risk. In some cases, the risk of the aircraft compromising the airport operation is negligible. One recent example being a Jet2 B738 which departed on a positioning flight MAN-LBA, couldn't get in, and was denied approval to return to MAN based upon the 'no divs' notam. It is quite likely that this particular aircraft would have found an available stand anyway, but even if not, Jet2 have their own hangar compound at MAN where a surplus aircraft could wait out congestion. And a diverted Citation poses little risk of stitching up the airport. Every diversion request comes with its own profile, and in many cases they present negligible risk to the smooth operation of the airport. Retaining the flexibility to approve these is logical. If a request comes in from a widebody which risks compromising the operation comes in, that is the time to say no. No need to give the same answer to everything else by default.
Perhaps you should be thinking of it from the aircrew’s perspective. You look at the Notams before leaving origin when heading for (say) Heathrow, and as MAN looks to have decent weather forecast you decide that that looks good for an alternate, and duly pop it into your planning in case of need. Heathrow turns out to be unavailable as you get in the vicinity, so you advise ATC and your ops that you’re going to your planned alternative, MAN. Ops give a handling agent at MAN a call to advise of an impending arrival, only to be told that diversion acceptance policy is now flexible, and because you are judged to be a risk of an unplanned night stop you can’t be accepted. Cue much gnashing and wailing from crew and airline ops, and some hasty replanning of a diversion point, adding unnecessary stress and workload when the level will already be higher than normal.

I’m clearly not aircrew, but it would be interesting to hear from those who are if the certainty of a “no divs unless an emergency” policy is preferable to the roulette of “we may take you we may not, we’ll see at the time”.

As an aside, Navpi’s cockles will be warmed when he hears that a Virgin 350 is reportedly planned in tomorrow for parking. I suspect not on R2, but you never know!
Curious Pax is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 14:19
  #1039 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A350 not an aircraft swap for the A350 we have on New York at present?

chaps1954 is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2022, 15:38
  #1040 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Curious Pax - The problem with your scenario is that it presumes similar circumstances for every aircraft in the system which needs to divert. Your Heathrow-bound widebody represents a quite different proposition from a LBA-bound B738 or a BLK-bound C56X. The notion of a smooth-functioning one-size-fits-all policy does not apply. You need bespoke solutions. You need dynamic case-by-case decision making.

Let's remember too that the era of mass diversions away from the London TMA airports due to fog is very much yesterday's problem. Technology advances have taken care of that for the majority of contemporary commercial airliners. And advances in flow control keep many short-haul flights on the ground at point of origin to calm traffic flows if they're planned into a fogbound destination airport. These days, a diversion is far more likely to take the form of an E190 which can't take the crosswind at LBA, an executive jet which can't get into a smaller airfield, an aircraft burning through its reserve fuel as it awaits a runway reopening following an incident (previous landing aircraft birdstrike, tyre-burst, etc.), or perhaps a technical diversion. Diversions take many forms.

Now let me offer another perspective. You are on an approach radar position and you have six additional aircraft which should have been out of the way on the ground by now, but which are instead in the hold awaiting weather improvement or diversion. You also have other traffic which would have been in the system anyway, so you're much busier than usual. And any aircraft which needs a diversion / reroute requires lots of additional coordination, because it is deviating from its original flight plan. If three of the holding aircraft are C56X's and the other three are B77W's, you will be very grateful if a nearby airport agrees to accept the C56X's, as in a radar environment each of those smaller types represents the same workload as a B77W. In that situation, you really want the largest airport in your area to pull its weight and pitch in. Manchester, almost uniquely, routinely declines to do that. MAN is notorious across Europe as the most frequent offender in this respect: "The airport that likes to say NO".

Yes, the aircrew perspective is important. But so is that of ATC, ground staff and everybody else. It has to be a team effort. It is so easy to take account of the protestations of one cog in the system alone. We also need to be mindful of safety considerations in flight, as well as those affecting operational convenience on the ground.
OzzyOzBorn is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.