Manchester-3

[chaps1954]

Aircraft arrives 5 minutes after midnight therefore next day

[AndrewH52]

Correct. Flights depart DUB on TUE/THU at 23:00, arriving in MAN at 00:05 on Wed/Fri.

Apologies, more haste, less speed.

[The96er]

Originally Posted by HOVIS

I can see one logistical problem straight away. Time of day. Dnata ground handling all go home at 23:30.

Dnata will not be handling it.

[HOVIS]

Originally Posted by The96er

Dnata will not be handling it.

Ooh, that's interesting. They losing the LH contract then?

[The96er]

Originally Posted by HOVIS

Ooh, that's interesting. They losing the LH contract then?

Nope, they just won’t be handling the freighter.

[mmeteesside]

Originally Posted by Rutan16

Suppose this is one of VALLAIR frames flown by Smartlynx Malta and currently operated for DHL; chances of bait and switch to EMA quite high !

Those ones are on the DHL network, as far as I know LH Cityline are operating two on behalf of LH Cargo, currently in conversion

[Navpi]

Originally Posted by chaps1954

Navpi You would not believe how little space is actually available. Most nights involve night parking for 80+ resident aircraft and night stopping.

If space is indeed that tight where will growth come from assuming we get back to pe pandemic levels in 3 years.

The additional pier wipes out even more stands.

[MANFOD]

Originally Posted by Navpi

If space is indeed that tight where will growth come from assuming we get back to pe pandemic levels in 3 years.
The additional pier wipes out even more stands.

That's a fair question Navpi. I tried to raise the issue earlier of when the TP is hopefully complete whether we will have more stands and the potential for growth within the airfield boundaries. Is the situation really worse now than pre-pandemic when TCX, MON, and flybe had based aircraft, even allowing for some additions from easyjet and Jet2? As I recall, 2 or 3 years ago, MAN couldn't accommodate proposed expansion by Ryanair on the grounds of terminal capacity as much as parking stands in the morning peak. I suspect the number of based a/c then was nearer 100 than 80 but maybe someone could confirm.

[Navpi]

Originally Posted by MANFOD

That's a fair question Navpi. I tried to raise the issue earlier of when the TP is hopefully complete whether we will have more stands and the potential for growth within the airfield boundaries. Is the situation really worse now than pre-pandemic when TCX, MON, and flybe had based aircraft, even allowing for some additions from easyjet and Jet2? As I recall, 2 or 3 years ago, MAN couldn't accommodate proposed expansion by Ryanair on the grounds of terminal capacity as much as parking stands in the morning peak. I suspect the number of based a/c then was nearer 100 than 80 but maybe someone could confirm.

From memory we have lost 17 TCX, 8 FlyBe, 3 VIR.

The other 80 were made up of the usual suspects
JET2, RYR, EZY , TUI, etc.

We cannot move beyond the current airfield footprint , so what now ?

Not sure we can rely on multiple W sectors from other bases or larger aircraft ?

Much as i like the piers have we compromised ramp space in order to provide gold standard facilities for what is predominantly the bucket and spade brigade?

[chaps1954]

We still have as many Virgin just not 747s and remember that the other operators have or will all have extra aircraft in fleets

[OzzyOzBorn]

Eventually, maybe. However, plans to backfill Thomas Cook capacity principally involved adding more based aircraft for S2020, but a certain Covid-19 put paid to that. Meanwhile, FlyBe's demise came right at the start of C-19 ... I don't think that any new based aircraft have come to MAN on the back of that. We'll see what happens in Summer 2022, if we can finally shake free from covid theatre.

I seem to recall that the MAN-based Thomas Cook fleet was in the mid-twenties at the end, but could be mistaken on that.

[MANFOD]

Originally Posted by chaps1954

We still have as many Virgin just not 747s and remember that the other operators have or will all have extra aircraft in fleets

As I recall, pre-pandemic Virgin based 6 a/c at MAN - not sure if it was ever 7. They flew to LAX, BOS and LAS (sometimes winter seasonal I think) as well as MCO, JFK, ATL and BGI. Previously they had also served SFO.
Unless it changes, this coming summer only has MCO (12 x weekly?); JFK daily, and at present ISB at 4 x weekly. By my reckoning, that will require no more than 4 based a/c as Virgin consider it more important for fleet utilisation to preserve their slots at LHR. Incidentally, BGI is showing 5 x weekly but the flights, perhaps surprisingly, are with transfers at LHR using BA for the domestic leg.

I don't believe the TCX based fleet ever reached mid-twenties, probably high teens, but I could be wrong. And of course their long haul flights (7 based a/c, was it?) included some arrivals back at MAN after 09.00 when there might not have been the same pressure on capable stands.

One rumour a while ago about possible new parking stands was somewhere in the vicinity of the viewing park but others may know if that was correct and if so whether it's still an option.

[chaps1954]

There were 4 arrivals plus 1 or 2 stored this moning which included an A350 plus an A330 positoned in this morning

[MANFOD]

Point taken, but when it comes to summer, I imagine those stored aircraft will be required at LHR.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

much as i like the piers have we compromised ramp space in order to provide gold standard facilities for what is predominantly the bucket and spade brigade

There comes a point where you have to ask yourself what do you actually want? MAN has the biggest capital investment in new facilities of any UK airport since LHR T2 and now it's a worry that by actually building piers so people can board without getting soaked (Welcome to Manchester!) that's a tragedy because there's a net drop of a handful of stands? There's enough to worry about without actively looking for more. They're trying to get back to world class facilities for international travellers, something T2 used to have once upon a time. It's not snobbery to do this, it's ambitious. So it might mean 2 or 3 less Ryanair based units but in the grand scheme of things, take a win when you're given one!

Given one B777F/B747F stand can hold 2 x B737/A320 what's your preference? Send cargo to another MAG airport or tell a based carrier to drop two based units?

[easyflyer83]

And let’s not fool ourselves into thinking MAN TP is gold standard. MAN was never going to get a glass palace and MAN TP isn’t. It’s practical, modern and pretty pleasant but it’s nothing particularly luxurious or grand.

Leisure travel is indeed a huge part of MAN and it always will be. You misjudge the bucket & spade brigade who, in reality at MAN (and most other northern airports) spend their money and no doubt fund those “gold standard” facilities. Not withstanding that, as we all know, MAN serves many non leisure routes and carriers.

I’m still not convinced that this isn’t about spotters wanting more variety.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Given one B777F/B747F stand can hold 2 x B737/A320 what's your preference? Send cargo to another MAG airport or tell a based carrier to drop two based units?

MAN has lost rather alot of based units taking account of the demise of MON, TCX and BEE. Plus pending reductions in based-fleet from VIR. There used to be single based units from carriers such as Condor, Germania, ASL France, Enter Air and Small Planet in the not too distant past as well. In the case of TCX and BEE, the anticipated reactive backfill from other based carriers was derailed by covid. Some additional based aircraft are likely, but it will be a challenging climb back to the previous highs. Four years minimum is my guess. So you offer a false choice. There is room to accommodate the passenger business on offer at this point, and to accept cargo flights. And, as you certainly know, MAG cannot "send" cargo operators anywhere. They can offer a switch-sell proposal which operators can accept or decline. The decision is the preserve of the operator. Furthermore, if business were to come back at a pace which threatens to overwhelm apron space, that would be a very welcome problem to have - but I fear there will be breathing room for a long time yet. And if a sustained upswing were to be genuinely anticipated, how about constructing some additional remote stands?

Note that previous instances which saw proposed additional based Ryanair units turned away related specifically to T3 access; nothing to do with space on the West Apron which would be the logical choice for servicing cargo flights.

I’m still not convinced that this isn’t about spotters wanting more variety.

In the rolling twelve months to the end of November 2021 (most recent data), MAN's passenger throughput was 5,444,757. Cargo was 52,446 Tonnes. Comparable numbers at the end of September 2019 were 29,510,599 and 113,248 Tonnes.

Whilst those November numbers represent a recovery from the March 2021 covid nadir of 2,844,918 and 39,710 Tonnes, it is clear that there is still a huge chasm separating today's throughput from the 2019 highs. So maybe you should consider that this is about interested parties wanting to see MAG putting some energy into attracting back much-needed business, rather than leaving the routes team on furlough for far too long, issuing consecutive no-div notams week after week, and rejecting freighter requests seemingly by default. If anyone is arguing that MAN can't cope with 20% of previous passenger throughput and less than half of recent cargo numbers, then they need to be asking serious questions of senior management. I'll take extra business for MAN whether it be "more variety" or extra Jet2's and Ryanair's. MAN needs everything it can get! The airport is enduring the biggest slump since WW2.

By the way, a word to the wise on the 'spotters' jibe. My years as a spotter from the age of ten led to a rewarding career in the industry which I always wanted to work in. I know that to be true of many other PP users also - including Skipness, I suggest. It is probably unwise to be haughtily dismissive of the avgeek massive on here!

[Mr A Tis]

If anyone is arguing that MAN can't cope with 20% of previous passenger throughput and less than half of recent cargo numbers, then they need to be asking serious questions of senior management.

I'm afraid from my pre Christmas use of T1 & Pre New Year use of T2 - this is exactly true. Neither were a pleasant experience in any way. As for T2 "Gold standard" remark by Navpi - you must be having a laugh, there is nothing Gold standard about T2., it merely brings an adequate level of facility (without the staff to fully utilise it) compared to the dire depressing T1/T3 facility-(also without adequate staff.

[easyflyer83]

Originally Posted by OzzyOzBorn

By the way, a word to the wise on the 'spotters' jibe. My years as a spotter from the age of ten led to a rewarding career in the industry which I always wanted to work in. I know that to be true of many other PP users also - including Skipness, I suggest. It is probably unwise to be haughtily dismissive of the avgeek massive on here!

You took it as a jibe. I have nothing against spotters. I don’t class myself as a spotter (I have friends who are) but I am an avgeek and frequent visits in my youth also led to a 16 year (and counting) experience within the industry.

Not withstanding that, I stand by my comment that for many, this argument will be about getting more variety and reg’s in their note books and some more exotic birds that might divert in.

There’s nothing wrong with that, it was nice to see a Air Tahiti in MAN last week, for example, rather than just getting to see one in LAX.

[Navpi]

The reference to "gold standard" was of course relative as a few snipers are I'm sure aware. The point remains there has been a tsunami of posters claiming limited facilities, no stands, no ramp space et al.

I am merely suggesting that a new pier which constrains space even more might be not be a priority at the moment given those constraints.

And yes as for the "spotting jibe", leave it out.