Lanterns
 

Thanks for the clarification 42psi. I believe there was at least one go around because of it.

With the construction and combustion of these things as they are, inspections of the operational areas was the only sensible option.

There were certainly a lot of them set off - or whatever the correct technical term is - to celebrate the start of the New Year last night. Never seen so many at once before. In all seriousness, I expect the CAA will address this somehow with advice at least.

Wonder if any other airports had the same problem?

Suzeman

Given the degree of publicity re Airport Body Scanners could the Manchester airport marketing department gain considerable currency from this especially for US travellers?

As ever another missed opportunity...........?:ugh:

That was the Monarch for stand 22 ... last arrival as such for the night and there'd been a bit of a gap since the last one landed.

With a fair few lanterns being seen heading our way as it started to make the approach a quick RWY inspection was decided on.


Nothing was actually found - although there were some picked up from the TWY just afterwards.



I've not heard of anyone else experiencing these although I guess there must be more of them in other parts of the world ??

Can I just confirm that the runway in use last night (31st Dec into the 1st Jan), 05L, was not closed at any point. Very regular Inspections were carried out throughout the evening and early hours due to the high number of Chinese lanterns set off from the North of the airfield. With the wind at approx 330 @ 12 throughout the night, many lanterns from the City Centre and further South, tracked over, and in a lot of cases, landed on the airfield. As far as I'm aware the only aircraft affected was the I/B Monarch A321 around 00:10 which broke off his approach around 15 miles out to allow a runway inspection prior to arrival.


N.B. At least 30 Chinese lanterns were retrieved around the airfield.

Another rant about Manchesters inability to sell itself !

Given all the news coverage about body Scanners and the fact that the ONLY UK exit point to the US to have these is Manchester, there should have been an opportunity for some great free marketing fully emphasising the potential safer aspects of using Manchester over London..........

Given all the free exposure that could have been exploited here and 7 days into the story, I am staggered that not one spokesman from Manchester has appeared !

Contrast this to Chris Yates independent aviation consultant !

OK I appreciate they may not be used all the time and not neccesarily on US flights but so what, good marketing doesn't tell the tuth all the time ....

.....get on the b****y TV !!!!!!!!! :ugh:

.......oh almost forgot, marketing are usually a bit bereft of creative thinking at Manchester anyway !

Bagso

"Contrast this to Chris Yates independent aviation consultant !

OK I appreciate they may not be used all the time and not neccesarily on US flights but so what, good marketing doesn't tell the tuth all the time ....

.....get on the b****y TV !!!!!!!!!"

RIGHT.
100%

esp as Mr Yates is a total "numpty" and spouts such rubbish ..
( I could go on.... as he is SO irritating!)

Happy New Year to all!

The media have been quite vocal about the screens and Manchester is getting a bit of credit for them.

The Telegraph described Manchester as "one of the safest airports in the world" due to it having the screens in operation. I doubt Israeli airports were taken into account when making that statement but it still looks good for the airport!

but perplexingly shoots itself in the foot many times.....

Arrived on VS76 New Years Day. Left MCO 77F, MAN struggling to hit 30F and where do we park? 219!!!! 400+ tired, cold and hacked off pax waiting for bus to T2 having just had a good view off empty stands with jetties straight into warmth. :ugh:

At least the bags were waiting for us. :hmm:

The media have been quite vocal about the screens and Manchester is getting a bit of credit for them.

The Telegraph described Manchester as "one of the safest airports in the world" due to it having the screens in operation. I doubt Israeli airports were taken into account when making that statement but it still looks good for the airport!



Fair enough MUFC but Chris Yates has been on SKY BBC TV 5 Live etc etc for 6 days on the bounce now.......... you cannot buy that publicity , where on earth are the Manchester team ?

With US pax so nervous this was a great opportunity to capitalise !

OK it might not make much difference but cmon guys have a go at least !

Totally pisspoor !

Simples.............on their Christmas and New Year holliers....."Do Not Disturb" sign up.

It still remains 'quite amusing' reading the criticism and
rants of various posters on here.If only they could prize
away one of the top jobs in MAG and solve all the
problems before they come up or be available for a comment
- like a top-notch boss would be able to do.Providing
ofcourse that they were on call 24-7-365

MM

"It still remains 'quite amusing' reading the criticism and
rants of various posters on here.If only they could prize
away one of the top jobs in MAG and solve all the
problems before they come up or be available for a comment
- like a top-notch boss would be able to do.Providing
ofcourse that they were on call 24-7-365"

You are talking utter bollocks Mickeyman. But to be honest I actually think I "could" do a better job !

With regards to this specific topic I was unaware that the airport closed down between Christmas and New Year... (although actually it nearly did )


Any decent businessman who was given a golden opportunity such as this would have grapsed it with both hands and should and would have been waving the flag ! My God at Last we have a USP that other airports do not yet possess !

If I wa swrong in this observation I would hold my hands up, BUT personally, if had been the Marketing Director I would have been ringing the BBC and Sky on Christmas Day if there was a chance of some good positive publicity....FOR A CHANGE !

Your comment is typical, an answer for everything but a solution to nothing
....a total lack of ambition !

I think I could run the England football team - seriously...:ugh:

How do you know that MAG's PR wasn't in contact with BBC, ITN, SKY etc? What do you want them to say? It was made quite clear by the press that MAN was the main airport with the scanners...

I just don't understand where you are coming from, can you please elaborate?:confused:

Would those airlines, that you would presumably want MAN to be 'selling' themselves to, not already be fully aware of what security arrangements are at all major airports without the need to find out from Sky News?

Gsky and IB4138...thank you for understanding I thought it was just me,
there is a GOD ! :ok:

MUFC ..you do dissappoint , many very valid contributions but on this occasion it might be worth entering into a civil partnership with Mickeyman who I am sure has both the time and patience to eleborate....

......sadly I don't !

Bagso

I thought the scanners were hastily put away
after complaints from people about the 'nakedness'
of the screen picture......infringement of human rights
etc..etc...
So not much to crow about on that front - just let the
dutch take the lead.

Your services for MAG will not be required - I think.

MM

MAN would piss a lot of people off if they went on telly claiming to have safer security than other UK airports. It would be asking for the next big story to be an unsafe incident at MAN. However trivial. Commercially dumb to go down that path and tempt fate.

Exactly :ok:


How many airlines do you see advertising/marketing themselves on the basis they are safer/the safest etc.

Do eurotunnel try and advertise that travelling with them avoids your ship sinking, do Virgin trains claim to be safer than transpennine ......


Look around, commercially it's an area that any company knows is best kept kept very clear of.

If the main headline on the front page of the Independant is anything to go by, it is extremely lucky that MAN DIDN'T go in front of the cameras parading their so-called world acclaimed security.

The Sunday Express main headline doesn't make for easy reading either...:eek:

You have totally missed the point guys...

I am not suggesting that Manchester stand up and crows about being "thee safest airport in Britain", thats clearly nonsense .. if you re-read I suggested that it was "potentially safer" ....

I was simply trying to make the point that Manchester needs as much publicity as possible in the present climate !

....After all the PM has just indicated he wants them in every UK airport, BUT Manchester has them in situ ALREADY !!!!

....therefore it would have been an opportunity to promote the airport within the context of this story, as indeed most switched on companies do when a news story relates to them !

Sadly not one spokesperson from Manchester Airport has appeared despite the fact that they appear to have had this technology thrust upon them.

I suspect it was nothing to do with a "strategic" decison not to appear but has more to do with all the to notch management being on holiday.....

Chris Yates isnt appearing on every channel for the good of his health ....he is promoting his profile in order to add value for the cheargeable services he offers !

I do feel Manchester could have done the same.....

THIS is what UK security should be:

The 'Israelification' of airports: High security, little bother - thestar.com

Having used it in Israel, I can confirm it is quite a daunting experience but obviously very effective.

I used the domestic terminal and it took all over 15 minutes from leaving the coach to being sat in the departure area - fantastic.

There has been plenty of Press comment on the fact that MAN has got the scanners so why does it need someone from MA to front it up?

AFAIK these new scanners are on a trial from DFT to assess their suitability and it is being suggested in the press today - see MUFC_fan's post earlier - that they are not up to it.

So why should the MA press people get involved? And even if they wanted to comment - which I doubt for reasons explained by Skipness and 42psi -they may have been asked not to say anything by DFT

Suzeman

if anyone is that desperate to see a MAN comment regarding the scanners, click here

....if putting a press release out to the MEN is the best we have to offer we deserve all we get !

....eeh by gum, simply grand !:ugh:

I remember arriving at Manchester late one winters evening about 19 to 22 years ago and as I came out of customs in Terminal 1 there was a guy with a camera on a tripod and a TV set by the side. Intrigued as to what he was doing I asked him and he replied 'trialling a body scanner'. He very obligingly gave me a demonstration on a following passenger. Very impressive, you could clearly see the shape of quite a number of items being carried in the passengers various pockets but no personal details.

I would expect significant improvements to have been made since then unless the project was shelved.

The MUC route is so well served by LH and EZY, I cant think why anybody would bother with SQ, Are SQ interested in providing a feeder service for LH?

VS remote parking
 

BetaBlockerUK,

With regard to your post #2368 I think you'll find that the reason for the VS flight parking on Stand 219 is a preference by the airline, and not at the airport's behest. There is a standing agreement between MA and the T2 airlines which assigns flights to remote stands on a planned, programmed basis, published weekly. This is the only way it can work in the morning peak and enables pax bussing resources to be at the ready. Airlines get a rebate for remote parking and so some airlines choose this for financial reasons.

mybrico,

Singapore Airlines is interested in uplift between MAN and SIN, and between MUC and SIN (and onward to points beyond). Any traffic using the service between MAN and MUC is purely incidental and will be viewed as a bonus.

Regards. SHED.

Roverman

Thanks for the info regarding my jetlag induced whinge. Apologies to MA Plc for my misdirected complaint.

To be fair, once they got 400+ pax off the plane onto waiting buses then everything worked fine.

Cold Betablockeruk

Runway 23R

Is 23R ILS now fully Cat 3 again or still going through the 300hr 'burn in' process.

Shed - I thought the routing was MAN-MUC-SIN and SIN-MUC-MAN

If so, then by default the sectors between MAN / MUC will have capacity exactly identical to the booked level between SIN / MUC. i.e. if 100 passengers are booked SIN-MUC, then there has to be 100 seats available MUC - MAN, regardless of the SIN / MAN loadings. Unless SQ are expecting the SIN-MUC sectors to be a basket case, I'd expect there to be a sizeable amount of capacity on the aircraft between MAN / MUC which any rev. manager worth his or her salt wouldn't be dismissing. Even 100 seats at £100 = £10,000 opportunity per leg, which would more than cover the additional handling costs / fuel burn of the extra turnarounds in the programme. Double-drops are really hard to make work optimally from a revenue perspective, so if someone from SQ has told you they aren't putting much effort into this it doesn't say much for their long term interest in maintaining the routing as it is.

If the routing is SIN-MUC-MAN-SIN, then that's a different story. Not a great sell to the Germans on the outbound leg though!

Doublesix

RW23R is still CAT 1 (and still has no DME paired with the ILS, so we have to use MCT DME)

8028410q

6 Hour delay on CO22 departure to Newark. I noticed the aircraft was also 6 hours late on arrival. Is this all down to that security 'scare' at Newark the other day?
I believe a passenger walked through a no-entry door - away from security screening.

Thanks for that 8028410q.

D6

Doublesix

RW23R is still CAT 1 (and still has no DME paired with the ILS, so we have to use MCT DME)

8028410q

Which begs the question, whilst the winds have been calm for the past few days why have they persisted in using 05L when they could have been getting some hours on 23R ??

Also notice that a notam has been issued stating we can not take any diversions again (except in emergency) and that 05R/23L will remain closed until the 11th as it is covered in Ice Ruts.

Time they invested in a second hairdryer with a longer flex imho.

Why would you want MAN to spend money and use deicing fluid on a runway that at best is open around 8 hours a day only? Far better to use the resources on keeping 1 runway open and getting the taxiways done. As for the no diversion, perhaps the current TAF:

TAF AMD EGCC 041957Z 0419/0524 17006KT 9999 BKN020 TEMPO 0419/0509 2000 SN BKN004 PROB30 TEMPO 0503/0507 0900 +SN BKN002 BECMG 0509/0511 9999 NSW TEMPO 0509/0518 4000 -SHSN BKN010=

indicates that there is a bit of snow forecast and it would be nice to keep on top of all regular services before having extra aircraft to sort out.

As for the no diversion, perhaps the current TAF:

TAF AMD EGCC 041957Z 0419/0524 17006KT 9999 BKN020 TEMPO 0419/0509 2000 SN BKN004 PROB30 TEMPO 0503/0507 0900 +SN BKN002 BECMG 0509/0511 9999 NSW TEMPO 0509/0518 4000 -SHSN BKN010=

indicates that there is a bit of snow forecast and it would be nice to keep on top of all regular services before having extra aircraft to sort out.

Err no....pretty sure its down to the ice ruts and frozen slush from the 1 cm of snow that fell on Saturday. No matter how you dress it up, Manchesters showing during the recent cold spell was pi$$ poor to say the least.

I'm sorry to see that you think MAN has a special ability to control the weather. It's pointless having the 2nd runway open for just a few movements so it may as well be closed. if the "bigger" and "better" airports such as AMS and FRA have had chaos with this weather, what gives you the right to say it's been a piss poor effort by MAN?

Easyjet not using an airbridge
 

here's a question then, bit sad but I'm interested. We took easyjet to malta (see past post on delays outbound) and both out and in the plane parked next to an airbridge, but we used steps. Why was that then? Seems a bit silly to build the things and not use them, and I cannot imagine the labour cost in moving an airbridge is that much more than driving steps up to an aircraft. I wasn't paying enough attention to see if both front and back doors had steps, as that would decrease delays in turnaround times of course...

G

easyJet may have stipulated that they don't want to use airbridges as it would increase their handling charges.