Manchester Expanding?
 

Here's a good one for rumours.

I've just been interviewed for a survey my a bloke from the DfT. The reason, aparently, is because I live under the flightpath of 24R at MAN.

He tells me that MAN have just had planning permission approved for a 4th terminal, which will be built where the Faireys apron (maintenence) is now.

And also that they have applied to build a 3rd runway. What was interesting about this is that according to this bloke it has something to do with the old dissused runway, now part of a taxiway, but a hangover from the triangulation days of the war.

As I work at MAN I find this surprising as I have not heard a peep about any of this from the usual sources. Anybosy know any more???

I've seen plans before to extend the terminal buildings in stages starting with a satellite opposite T2 and ending with the western apron being completely enclosed.

A new runway though seems a bit of a non-starter - I cannot see where you'd put it.

The western maintenance hangers are on on a ten year lease and now some 8 years into the lease, i heard that they wanted to demolish the hangers and build a 3rd runway parrallel to the M56?

The old 'London Airways' hangar won't be missed, as it's stood idle for half its life!!
However I won't be holding my breath on any of the reported development, as other rumours heard recently tell of a tale of very little opportunity for major expansion due to limited funds.
( W.H. Smith & Boots haven't coughed up enough on the retailing side probably!!)
'Growing the business' - yeh right, - I don't think that's been heard of for a while at Manchester, ever since Gill Thompson left!

:mad:

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ne..._be_built.html
Third runway may be built (2002)
PLANS for a fourth terminal and a third runway at Manchester Airport have been unveiled.

http://www.georgeosborne.co.uk/recor...type=news&ID=9
Manchester Airport
27 January 2004
The Government's hidden plans for a massive increase in noise and pollution.

I’m afraid to report that Knustford has just fallen for one of the oldest political tricks in the book – use a red herring to distract people’s attention from your real plans. The red herring is the Government’s talk of a third runway at Manchester Airport, and their real plans are for a massive increase in noise and pollution in the skies over Knutsford. Let me explain.

In 2002 the Government announced that it was thinking about which airports in Britain could expand over the next thirty years. A great big consultation document was produced with all sorts of facts and figures about how millions more people were going to using airplanes in the years to come, and Britain’s airports were not big enough to cope. One of the solutions, they suggested, was a third runway at Manchester Airport. You could almost hear the cry of protest go up in King Street!

For the people of Knutsford, still reeling from the impact on the second runway, it was like a red rag to a bull. Dozens of people wrote to me saying that a third runway would make the noise problem unbearable, increase pollution and swallow up acres of Cheshire countryside. “There must be no third runway”, they demanded, and I took up their fight. I made it clear to the Government that their plans were completely unacceptable and that I would do everything to stop them.

Then, just before this Christmas, the Government announced that it had made a decision. There would be an extra runway at Stansted, possibly an extra runway at Heathrow, but no third runway at Manchester. To use their precise words, they said: “we do not anticipate major runway capacity constraints at Manchester before 2030”. Again, the sigh of relief in King Street was audible. “The town has been saved”, we all exclaimed. “We can relax now”. How wrong we were.

For, now that I’ve thought about it for a couple of weeks, I realise that it was highly unlikely that they were ever going to say ‘yes’ to a third runway. Indeed, Manchester Airport themselves had never asked for one to even be considered. They were happy with the two existing runways, and had no money or need to build a third one. The Government had raised the fear of a third runway only so they could then knock it down. In other words, it was a red herring and it succeeded in distracting our attention from their real plans.

These plans are buried away on page 85 of the Government document called ‘The Future of Air Transport’, which was published last month. They reveal that the Government is happy to see the number of passengers rise from 19 million a year to more than 50 million a year – in other words, a massive increase of more than 150 per cent. That means probably a whole new terminal at the Airport and many many more planes in the skies above Knutsford.

Even the Government admit in their plans that this would have a huge impact on noise and the local environment. They say “we recognise that the location of Manchester Airport already causes large numbers of people to be exposed to aircraft noise nuisance”. On their latest figures, 45,000 people live in area where noise from the airport exceeds 57 decibels. That would rise to 70,000 people if this huge expansion goes ahead. They admit too that air quality would deteriorate and that emissions of nitrogen dioxide would have to be carefully monitored.
However, in the Government’s words, “we do not believe, on balance, that these impacts are so severe that constraints should be imposed on the development of the airport”. In other words, the airport has a carte blanche to more than double in size regardless of the impact on local people of noise and pollution.

I strongly disagree with the Government. I want Manchester Airport to be a success. Many people I represent work at the Airport. I want it to go on being a magnet for jobs and investment that benefits the whole region. But I firmly believe that Airport will only be a success with the support of the local community, and that includes the people of Knutsford. Any expansion of the Airport must, in my view, be accompanied by tough measures to reduce noise and pollution. For example, older, noisier and dirtier planes should be banned. Planes that don’t stick to agreed flight paths must be heavily fined. No additional flight paths, especially the so-called Green Route over the town, should be opened up. Proper compensation should be paid. The rights of local people must be respected. Only then will Manchester Airport have a sustainable and successful future.

"Any expansion of the Airport must, in my view, be accompanied by tough measures to reduce noise and pollution."

The same good commuters of Knutsford used to make my life a misery speeding into work in Manchester along Wilmslow Road, and complained endlessly about speed cameras to make them stick to the limits. And I'm sure they never used the airport at all.

I don't have a lot of sympathy.

A year or so ago I was shown some outline plans of how MAN might look in 30 years time. These were purely speculative but included various possible terminals and runways. All these configurations had their advantages and disadvantages ( not least the public outcry/protests) at more development. One idea was to build a runway along the line of the old 10/28. This would start near the threshold of 24L and continue west through the area of the engine test bay towards the M56 motorway. A terminal would be sited where the current maintenance base is. Another terminal site would be to the south of 24L alongside the "remote" fire station.
Looks like one of these might come to fruition?

There's some evidence of future plans on the south side. The railway siding is still there from Runway 2 and there is a huge unnecessary roundabout south of the road tunnel, apparently for "traffic-calming", yeah right.....

Good luck, Manchester Airport. Having got this far I can see little need to restrict growth.

To add to the rumours
 

Here's one for thought that is being bounced around the local area.

When BAe Woodford finally goes which is deemed to be soon, Manchester are going to buy it, move most of the cargo or what it can and the GA flights to Woodford and where the cargo is now turn that to another terminal with a new rumway running alongside the M56.

Just a rumour of course.
:mad:

I was under the impression that
when an aircraft used Woodford ILS that then reduced by Manchester by the same number of movements, due to it taking Manchesters airspace

And I have also heard that some equipment to do with Nimrod wing jigs has just been delivered so may not be closing quite as quick as you think

But who knows

G-I-B

Terminal four has been on the cards for years! It's position keeps changing though, I thought it was going over the other side of the second runway. As they are going to move the aviation viewing park over to the far side of runway 2 some time. Perhaps the AVP is the site of T4?. If they knock down the run pen, NEA ,B.A., Monarch and MYT's hangars they will have a huge site. After all what do they need hangars for at an airport?;)

Rgds Dr.I.

Manchester Expansion
 

The airport archivist visited the Yorkshire Air Society on Sunday and told us that unconfirmably Manchester were possibly building or extending the terminal capacitys. However to my knowlage nothing much was talked about a new runway. As someone has said this expansion has been on the cards for a while.

He also told us that the viewing park and cargo hangers were to move to allow for terminal expansion and that the based Concorde's rudder has been damaged by strong winds some months ago.

Manchester T4

(Nearly) All will be revealed..........

Yes but when ManchesterMan? :confused:

later next month maybe???

G-I-B

Oh no, not another Terminal!! That'll mean the travelators in the 'Blue Tube' will never work, - they'll not have enough money to repair them.:{

It would seem rather strange to knock down three hangars that are only about 10 years old (plus the Citiexpress hangar too?). Unless MYT have decided to relocate to another airport and Monarch decide to stop their very busy business of repairing & maintaining a hell of a lot of aircraft in their hangar they will have to be rebuilt anyway, and if I remember right the Monarch hangar alone was about £7,000,000 to build last time, if the huge MYT/SR Technic hangar was rebuilt I doubt the MAPLC could afford it. It would also show a stupid level of forethought by allowing them to be built in the first place.
It would also mean the new terminal being built right next to the the fuel farm, and I somehow can't see that, maybe that's moving too.

The Concorde had its rudder gag blown out and the rudder was forced hard over. There was no visible damage. Don't forget the rudders were jettisonable anyway!!!!!!!:D

Rgds Dr.I.

Concorde Rudder?
 

Would that have been be jetisoned AFTER a successful landing , or before the inevitable crash??

Only joking, I know it made few landings, without too much problem, with only half a rudder during its its flying days.

:ugh:

a69.

Have United shown some interest in operating from Manchester? It says on another airliners forum that UA bigwigs may have visited Ringway this week....

Anyone know when GB AIRWAYS second A320 arrives at Manchester, it's sometime this month.

Well it must be soon as services to Marrakesh, Lanzarote, Gran Canaria and daily Tenerife start in three weeks. I hear Rhodes and Rome may be on the agenda for next sumner, too.

Yeh the next GB Airways A320 at MAN is on its way very soon. My mate has almost finished his CC training with them ready for the increase in flights.

Oops! The £500,000 jet prang
 

Small photo at http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/me...et_prang_.html

IT is the parking prang that will cost more than £½ million.

Ground staff reversing a passenger jet at Manchester Airport accidentally struck an aircraft hangar causing a long delay for more than 300 passengers - and a six-figure bill for holiday firm Thomas Cook.

The rudder on the Airbus 330 was twisted in the prang during a routine maintenance check by engineers.



Thomas Cook was immediately forced to cancel its scheduled flight to Cuba and scour airports around the world for a replacement aircraft big enough to take the 333 disappointed passengers.

After a frantic search, the only available stand-in plane was found - a Boeing 747 in Madrid.

It cost Thomas Cook £200,000 to charter the plane from a firm called Air Pullmantur and then to fly it from Spain to Manchester.

Meanwhile, the firm also had to pay an estimated £150,000 to fly a new rudder to Manchester in a Hercules cargo plane from the Airbus factory in Toulouse, France.

Repairing the damage is expected to cost an additional £200,000. And then there was the expense of arranging hotels for the 333 stranded passengers and supplying them with meal vouchers - another bill of around £25,000.

As the holidaymakers left Manchester Airport for Cayo Coco 30 hours late, Thomas Cook bosses were said to be "furious" at the sky-high cost of the minor crash.

It is understood it occurred while the aircraft was being moved on the ground by staff working for Monarch Aircraft Engineering.

Grandfather Kaz Janski, a holidaymaker from Huddersfield, was with a family of five who paid £4,000 for their trip.

Shortly before he finally boarded the replacement plane for the 10-hour flight, he said: "We were already in the departure lounge when we were eventually told we would be spending the night in Manchester."

A Thomas Cook spokesman said: "We did everything we could to help our passengers following the delay caused by this situation."

A spokesman for Monarch Aircraft Engineering said: "We can confirm that damage was caused to an aircraft while it was being manoeuvred. An investigation has been launched."

I have read rumours on other sites of Delta to be announcing MAN-JFK next week (along with ATL-EDI) and they seem to be coming from more than one person

I understand DL may be announcing MAN-JFK on Tuesday

The 2nd GB A320 arrives on 29th late on and starts flying on the 30th with the start of the winter timetable.

Winter service reductions
 

Seems like the airport will be very quiet this winter with a number of services terminating and other with reduced frequency.
Stopping for the winter at least are:
Maersk to Copenhagen
Monarch to Madrid
Air Berlin to Dusseldorf
Air Berlin to Berlin
Jet2 to Nice
Btitish London Airways too numerous to list

Reduced services by Jet2 to Alicante and Faro. Although to be fair to Jet2 there will be flights to ski destinations such as Geneva and Chambery.There may well be other services that I haven't noticed like the Air Canada but thats generally summer only.

On a more positive note
Add extra SkyEurope to Saltzburg ( I think)
Flybe extra SOU flight and then from Jan/Feb EXT and BHD
Aer Arann to IOM
Plus Probably
Etihad and extra Qatar

G-I-B

Cathay Pax back to MAN
 

The long rumoured return of Cathay pax services to be MAN will be announced v v soon.

HKG - MAN with a 75min stop in Moscow.
The A340 will operate the route.

Some final "issues" being dealt with at the Moscow end.

Standby

Noone in the know seems to know anything about this Cathay service proposal! The airline has been applying for slots for years, but dont seem any nearer starting a service.

What evidence do you have for this new information?

Playamar2..... Air Berlin stopped the DUS-MAN service a while ago already .

But are to introuduce Man STN twice daily I believe.

Gayrugbyblahblahblah.....

AirBerlin MAN-STN

Sounds like a 'feeder' service to me!

Expect a pull-out from the two
remaining direct services - soon ?

MM

Cathay start in march 3 times a week with a stop in moscow using A343 arriving 0815 departing 1000

:ok: rampman

next summer
 

Any news on flybe other routes if any and GB if it still 3 base next year and what new routes if any.

GB are not basing a 3rd aircraft at MAN until 2007. Therefore, it maybe that we do not see any new routes...unfortunately. DBV is back next summer after a winter break and it will be interesting to see whether the canary island flights continue for the summer, i would imagine they will. Should this be the case there will be little scope to expand our route network from MAN due to having just the 2 aircraft. It's a shame really because several of BACX dropped routes would fit nicely into GB's network as i have always said. However, considering they have just been at MAN for little over 6 months the current rate of expansion has been good. GB is finding it tough competing against LS, WW and MON in particular but we are on top of the game and offer a far superior service.
Yes ...... i am an employee!:p

Dubrovnil hasn't exactly been setting any records! The other services are doing very well. GB would do well to tap in to the summer Greek market. Rhodes, Heraklion, Corfu and Zante would all be good options for summer next year.....get in there before ZB does...!!

Apparently ZB are de to announce some new services from MAN soon.....my money's on Rimini and Venice.

A 73% load factor for a brand new route aint too bad though.

Interesting to point out to ye lot that within the GB network - out the top 3 routes MAN had two of them. (LGW-FNC was busiest)

A 93% load factor on the PFO and low 90's for the AGP and TFS routes.

Yeah heard about MAN having two top routes out of three within the network. DBV has been rather difficult by all accounts this year (funny destination choice if you ask me) but nevertheless it will be back next year. Was speaking to John Patterson (MD) the other week and it was then he said that it was tough at MAN and that he wanted GB to fly from MAN a few years ago when there was little LCC activity at MAN. The decision to operate mainly longer routes has helped though and in that respect has kept apace with MON and in front of EZY and LS etc. One challenge for MAN in respect of GB services is to increase Club Europe figures. I usually reply to the "theres no high yield from MAN" argument sayin there is but i see this as being a big challenge on leisure routes which are GB's bread and butter. That said, there are many northerners out there that are as tight as a ducks ar*se all year but who will splash out on holidays.

I don\'t see the Greek Islands bein ready quite ready for scheduled flights from MAN. Property ownership there is no where near that in Spain, Portugal or the canaries. In terms of GB i can see Faro being a new destination. I personally believe also that some leisure/business routes could be attempted. For example, FCO and BCN. FCO has been dropped by BACX and BCN is only operated by MON since WW and IB dropped the route. I used to be a travel agent and getting a BCN flight was very difficult.