Manchester-3
MAN received two diversions this week. Both emergencies, one medical, one technical. The tech aircraft I believe is still there, blocking a remote stand and no doubt giving the maintenance guys a headache. That's the trouble with diversions, you really don't know what you're getting yourself into. A quick splash and dash or a longer protracted stay. At some point they will all need fuel (usually) some sort of tech clearance, maybe spare parts from abroad so customs clearance, a tug and crew, dispatcher, maybe even loaders and cargo handlers. Hotac possibly for crew or/and passengers.
All these are problematic especially at a time of staff shortages. I heard the other day that Swissport are paying £30/hour overtime rates just to get people to work extra hours!
Your 'dynamic' solution at the moment is dead in the water.
All these are problematic especially at a time of staff shortages. I heard the other day that Swissport are paying £30/hour overtime rates just to get people to work extra hours!
Your 'dynamic' solution at the moment is dead in the water.
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: SYD
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your 'dynamic' solution at the moment is dead in the water.
MAN is uniquely FAILING in this respect, and that is a matter for concern. Repeated failure is unacceptable and should be addressed by management. But I see no urgency from MAG to address those areas of the operation which undermine the good work done by other departments at MAN. Reputation is always driven by those areas of the business which let the side down.
BTW, the 'tech' aircraft which you cite is exempt from any dynamic diversion decision-making process. A flight which declares an emergency CAN land. That's the rule. So the question of whether the airport operator would want to accept it or not is moot. And, of course, an aircraft which diverts in with a technical problem runs the risk of sticking around for a while. That's what 'tech' implies. If a non-emergency aircraft wishes to divert for technical reasons, that can be taken into consideration when a decision is made.
It certainly does seem to be at MAN. But not at just about every other airport. And aircraft require all the same support services you mention at those. Everywhere else seems to be coping fine, and I don't think their staff are more handsomely remunerated than their Manchester counterparts.
MAN is uniquely FAILING in this respect, and that is a matter for concern. Repeated failure is unacceptable and should be addressed by management. But I see no urgency from MAG to address those areas of the operation which undermine the good work done by other departments at MAN. Reputation is always driven by those areas of the business which let the side down.
BTW, the 'tech' aircraft which you cite is exempt from any dynamic diversion decision-making process. A flight which declares an emergency CAN land. That's the rule. So the question of whether the airport operator would want to accept it or not is moot. And, of course, an aircraft which diverts in with a technical problem runs the risk of sticking around for a while. That's what 'tech' implies. If a non-emergency aircraft wishes to divert for technical reasons, that can be taken into consideration when a decision is made.
MAN is uniquely FAILING in this respect, and that is a matter for concern. Repeated failure is unacceptable and should be addressed by management. But I see no urgency from MAG to address those areas of the operation which undermine the good work done by other departments at MAN. Reputation is always driven by those areas of the business which let the side down.
BTW, the 'tech' aircraft which you cite is exempt from any dynamic diversion decision-making process. A flight which declares an emergency CAN land. That's the rule. So the question of whether the airport operator would want to accept it or not is moot. And, of course, an aircraft which diverts in with a technical problem runs the risk of sticking around for a while. That's what 'tech' implies. If a non-emergency aircraft wishes to divert for technical reasons, that can be taken into consideration when a decision is made.
Perhaps the reason other airports are not in the same position as MAN could be down to many factors. EG. What are the employment opportunities outside the airport? I do know of several people who have left airport work to pursue careers elsewhere. Reasons given, better pay, t&cs, not having to get up at 3AM to work double shifts.
This is not MAG's fault. Point the finger instead at the low cost airlines who insist on paying peanuts and demanding the Earth. (Jet2 saw what was happening and took everything in house, a very good move IMO). But the knock on effect is plain to see.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The "No divs" notam expires at midnight tonight. Let's see if it's renewed. Any bets??
MAN has surprised at times, like the morning a few years ago when 3 x A380s diverted to MAN as well as a number of other wide bodies. It's just difficult to understand whether the notam when issued, or other occasions when MAN has not been cooperative, are as a result of sound, logical, operational decisions based on the situation at the time, or a reflection of attitudes on the ground by particular airport management or handling agents staff.
MAN has surprised at times, like the morning a few years ago when 3 x A380s diverted to MAN as well as a number of other wide bodies. It's just difficult to understand whether the notam when issued, or other occasions when MAN has not been cooperative, are as a result of sound, logical, operational decisions based on the situation at the time, or a reflection of attitudes on the ground by particular airport management or handling agents staff.
It's just difficult to understand whether the notam when issued, or other occasions when MAN has not been cooperative, are as a result of sound, logical, operational decisions based on the situation at the time, or a reflection of attitudes on the ground by particular airport management or handling agents staff.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 50
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised not to see here mentioned MAN found room for a delivery flight...as a spanking new Iraqi Airways A220 is currently sat remote off T2. Will be continuing its journey to Iraq from Montreal very shortly.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for mentioning that eggc. Did someone suggest there might be more Iraqi A220s on delivery?
And here it is - the infamous notam updated.
A) EGCC B) 2201071559 C) 2201102359 E) AD NOT AVBL FOR DIVERTED TRAFFIC. EMERGENCIES EXCEPTED. CREATED: 07 Jan 2022 16:00:00
I always have to read these a couple of times to interpret them but I think it's only been renewed until 23.59 on Monday 10th January, which is a shorter period than normal. Whether that's more hopeful is another question.
And here it is - the infamous notam updated.
A) EGCC B) 2201071559 C) 2201102359 E) AD NOT AVBL FOR DIVERTED TRAFFIC. EMERGENCIES EXCEPTED. CREATED: 07 Jan 2022 16:00:00
I always have to read these a couple of times to interpret them but I think it's only been renewed until 23.59 on Monday 10th January, which is a shorter period than normal. Whether that's more hopeful is another question.
NOTAMs are for temporary changes/restrictions only.
I believe the CAA normally require the contents to be incorporated into the AIP after a certain length of time.
In this case I think you'll find they've already allowed it to be reissued beyond the normal repeat limit.
Not forgetting it's intention is primarily to ensure EGCC is not flight planned as an alternate.
I believe the CAA normally require the contents to be incorporated into the AIP after a certain length of time.
In this case I think you'll find they've already allowed it to be reissued beyond the normal repeat limit.
Not forgetting it's intention is primarily to ensure EGCC is not flight planned as an alternate.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's interesting 42psi. The notam first came into effect at 00.01 on 21 Dec. so cumulatively it will be 3 weeks when the new notam expires on Monday. Are you suggesting the CAA may refuse to let it be reissued at some point if it's already on an extension?
Not right now!
I believe the CAA already accept that the circumstances are unusual, but they won't allow it indefinitely.
Edited to clarify : if you keep issuing it its clearly not temporary so you will eventually have to put in the AIP.
A Notam is not for permanent changes.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 63
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is possible of course the airline having applied "for Manchester", actually want Manchester !
Last edited by Navpi; 8th Jan 2022 at 11:30.
Rutan26, Looks highly likely once MAN get wind it is still supposed to be coming, although it was actually known in October so they have had time to switchsell it if there are logistical issues.
it is possible of course the airline having applied "for Manchester", actually want Manchester !
it is possible of course the airline having applied "for Manchester", actually want Manchester !
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: manchester
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrival/Departure times seem a little long 25 1/2 hrs surely 90MIN turnaround more realistic
Another point if in connection with DHL and EMA maybe EMA can not accept it at those times of night, that's the busiest part of night at EMA especially on that DHL Ramp
Another point if in connection with DHL and EMA maybe EMA can not accept it at those times of night, that's the busiest part of night at EMA especially on that DHL Ramp
