PPRuNe Forums - Manchester-2

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)

- - Manchester-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599775-manchester-2-a.html)

Looking on today from the OUTSIDE, it appeared to be chaotic for aircraft getting to or awaiting for stands. I saw Air Transat, TAP, Singapore, Lufthansa, SAS, waiting in excess of 15mins on taxiways. I do hope the airlines claim compensation for making the outbound flight late and the wastage of fuel. (so much for lessening carbon emissions).

Yet another example of MA's policy of Make Do. Before ANY of this re-development work started, they should have constructed spare apron space, so that as Terminal stands were de-commissioned for terminal work,
they had somewhere to park aircraft out of the way so as not to interfere with scheduled traffic movements. The old Hangar space near the Romper is an ideal spot. Both of those should have been flattened years ago, as they almost were ready to fall down by themselves.

As for the terminal extension, the new finger from T2 to the new pier looks very cheap and nasty. Perhaps constructed to align with that crap piece of construction that gets you from T1 lounge to pier B past the old Idlex tower, which has just about room for two people side by side.

How Emirates must laugh at such a piece of inept access. I've seen wider corridors in Olympic house.

MA are devoid of any Imagination or of producing a first class product anymore, it's always appears to be cheap cheap cheap. "Build it and they will come". " Build it cheaply and watch them leave "

I wonder how long it'll take the MA police to take this comment off the thread?

Much love,

Adola.

We've all known for months how they've cut corners in this transformation program. The airport were even forced to give a statement disproving this, might I add in the least convincing manner possible. I had high hopes but ultimately, it's a cheap project with an extremely bland design ( dark grey? seriously?) Hope for their airports sake that they sort this mess out, last thing they want is to be annoying the likes of Virgin, Emirates and Singapore.

I guess you have to be pragmatic. Ultimately, the airport, or any business, has to live by it's means. I'd love to extend my house with an additional wing and a granny flat at the bottom of the garden for guests. The thing is, I don't have the funds for it.

Now, the terminal extension or certainly the south side of it, doesn't look as good as i'd hoped. Floor to ceiling glazing would have looked good. The actual pier looks absolutely fine. It doesn't look cheap, the glass airbridges look the part and internally it looks like there is plenty of natural light and spacious. BKK, which I've transited many times looks very futuristic externally, internally it is very basic and looks cheap and tired in places. MAN was never going to be a glass palace, it simply doesn't have the funds to achieve that.

It's disappointing to hear about the leak, time will tell whether this is just an inevitable teething problem or a more fundamental issue. Theres nothing to suggest it's the latter yet.

Finally, it's irritating when you hear the comments "oh, Emirates won't stand for that" , "last thing they want to do is annoy Singapore" blah blah blah. Have you seen some of the airports they fly into ??? They will of course have their own stipulations of MAN but you will find that the some of the most demanding customers are the likes of easyJet, Jet 2 and Ryanair..... the airlines that use MAN a lot more than a few times a day.

I'm no Manchester Airport apologist, far from it, but some of you need to manage your expectations and also suspend judgement until more of the project is complete.

Even Parliament was leaking the other day

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adola69 (Post 10439777)

Where were these aircraft positioned whilst waiting for their stands? There is a big project on-going with taxiway redevelopments at the moment and for the rest of this year, it’s inevitable that aircraft waiting to access T2 or pier C of T1 will have to wait near the tower for aircraft coming out of Pier C or T2.
In order to fix something or improve a process, you have to first make a mess.
The situation with aircraft holding is not ideal, especially from a passengers perspective if, for example, they happen to be relying on catching a train at a certain time, like myself when I use MAN. However, I would like to think MAG informed their airline customers long before this taxiway work commenced of possible delays during taxiing.
I know there is a NOTAM in place whilst all the works are taking place informing air crew of the possibility of extended waiting times on the airfield if aircraft arrive early due to stand availability.
MAN just doesn’t have enough space and in my view it was inevitable these type of issues were going to arise.

I look forward to the end of may when I fly from the new pier and also to 2020 and beyond, when we will see an improvement and more efficient pattern in aircraft parking spaces and movements.

I know the Singapore suffers with stands but it is partly due to always wanting the same stands
which can have effect if the flight is early and the aircraft departing off stand late which
does happen quite often as long haul flights quite often arrive an hour early, it also happens
at Gatwick and Heathrow and I`m sure BHX and LTN

Quote:

Originally Posted by chaps1954 (Post 10440916)

It also happens
at Gatwick and Heathrow and I`m sure BHX and LTN

LH arriving early at LTN! Only the El Al I would think 😳

Didn`t mean just long haul as any delays or early arrivals can cause a problem but yes mainly long/mid haul
and I know Luton is very tight on stands as is Leeds to be honest

QANTAS frequently ended up holding abeam the RVP/Engine-test facility. One morning it took it longer to reach the stand after landing than it did to reach DAYNE from the FIR Boundary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOOKER (Post 10441386)

QANTAS frequently ended up holding abeam the RVP/Engine-test facility. One morning it took it longer to reach the stand after landing than it did to reach DAYNE from the FIR Boundary.

By heck Zooker you're showing age! Was that when QF routed via LHR or via the continent? I well remember being offered a jump seat MAN/LHR but that must, if i recall correctly, have been 40 years ago at least.

They ran 1983 till 1994

Ian

Thanks Ian, It was round about the early 1990s I think Scottie. Our rest-room looked out towards the 06 end. The Delta L1011 often got stuck there too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adola69 (Post 10439777)

Perhaps constructed to align with that crap piece of construction that gets you from T1 lounge to pier B past the old Idlex tower, which has just about room for two people side by side.

Yes, it's terrible that 30 feet or so. I was once held up for almost 3 seconds behind a family of 6 who were walking slowly.

[QUOTE][Yes, it's terrible that 30 feet or so. I was once held up for almost 3 seconds behind a family of 6 who were walking slowly./QUOTE]

Oh what whit you posses? Be it 5 feet, thirty or 100 feet, it hardly tops out as a class piece of terminal infrastructure does it?

A.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spannersatcx (Post 10439516)

Aircraft don't fit, there was no fuel, airbridges don't fit, and more importantly nowhere to get refreshments!

There was fuel on the opening day.

No, but it is what it is and we have to get on with it. It’s only like that because of regulation changes preventing the mixing of inbound and outbound passengers. The same as the rest of the unwieldy routings often required to get from an aeroplane after disembarking.

[QUOTE=Adola69;10442194]

Quote:

[Yes, it's terrible that 30 feet or so. I was once held up for almost 3 seconds behind a family of 6 who were walking slowly./QUOTE]

Oh what whit you posses? Be it 5 feet, thirty or 100 feet, it hardly tops out as a class piece of terminal infrastructure does it?

A.

I must have walked that route 100's of times and I suspect like most never gave it's construction a second thought.

I believe the new pier cannot even have mobile catering as the pier does not have sprinkler system, so it has two vending machines instead. It also only has one toilet ( from the orginal 3 planned ) and that has only 2 mens urinals. The length of the walk from the terminal itself is gaining comments, but this can be the case at other large airports. Is MAG maybe biting of more that it can finacially chew with MAN and STN works proceeding at the same time, and the quality of the finished product being cut all the time ?

Actually there are 2 sets of toilets in the new pier - there being 3 urinals, if we must discuss details, in each.

I stand corrected if that is the case Scottie Dog, that's not as I was informed. I was more, shocked isnt the right word, but surprised, that a public space like that did not be required to have a sprinkler system. Its a long walk back for a proper coffee, so dont leave the terminal for the pier before you are amply fed and watered.