PPRuNe Forums

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)

MANFOD 8th Nov 2017 09:39

For the second morning in 10 days, MAN is the only major UK airport to be affected by fog (I think BFS & GLA had a little fog much earlier).

Is MAN more restricted in movements than some other airports - LGW for example - when in LVPs; and if so, is that due to airfield lay-out or taxiway maintenance at a particular time? On occasions, FR24 shows 1 inbound on finals and a second having only just left the hold, suggesting huge gaps. Actually, this morning between 07.30 and 08.00, there were usually 3 on approach but more recently it dropped to 2 again with 5 or 6 in the stacks. I appreciate there are outbounds to get away, but just wondered if MAN was abnormally restricted in LVP conditions.

chaps1954 8th Nov 2017 11:27

The London airfields had fog the other day, it`s just luck of the draw

MANFOD 8th Nov 2017 12:28

And that luck seems to have changed over the years. Back in the 60s/70's/80s, it wasn't too unusual for MAN to be one of the few airports not affected by fog when airports in the south and elsewhere were. A generality I know, but then if the direction of a gentle wind or drift was between NW and South East i.e. say NE or E; we tended to escape. S, SW or W tended to be a problem due to the Bollin valley. Nowadays, the wind direction seems irrelevant.

The forecasting of fog doesn't seem great these days either. A week last Friday, fog only appeared in the metars trend at about 05.00 that morning. The previous evening's TAFS had not predicted fog. Likewise the TAFS at 17.00 yesterday only gave a 30% Prob of 1400m in MIFG. I'm sure the airport and airlines would appreciate something more accurate, unless there are special factors which make MAN particularly difficult to forecast.

Fortunately most aircraft can now land in quite thick fog but the long holding delays can cause problems,especially if not originally expected.

Navpi 8th Nov 2017 18:18

http://www.cityam.com/275294/lord-adonis-warns-stalling-heathrow-expansion-means-airport/amp

I "think" Manchester might beg to differ given meteoric long haul expansion in last 3 years.

LAX_LHR 8th Nov 2017 18:28

The Monarch slots have now been returned to ACL, and will not form part of the appeal by KPMG.

This is due to MAN (MAG) making a submission to the high court to release the slots, thus they are not being contested any further.

Hopefully we should see the slots being used up soon, as said, MAG would not have made a submission to get its slots handed back if they didn't have any need to do so, it means airlines must be willing to use them.

southside bobby 8th Nov 2017 19:43

Unless they did not want or expect to pay for them as they would have had to with KPMG.

LAX_LHR 8th Nov 2017 20:24

MAN wouldn't have had to pay for them, the airlines would have (if there was any financial value attached to them)

Skipness One Echo 8th Nov 2017 20:40


Originally Posted by Navpi (Post 9950796)
http://www.cityam.com/275294/lord-adonis-warns-stalling-heathrow-expansion-means-airport/amp

I "think" Manchester might beg to differ given meteoric long haul expansion in last 3 years.

Leave it to the LHR thread, eh Bagso?

There’s a really good book in TAS showing diversions at MAN over the years! Highly recommended.

southside bobby 8th Nov 2017 20:53

LAX LHR...
Absolutely..That`s what I was replying to & picking up on.
The airlines would have had pay if KPMG owned the slots & do airlines need to,want to or expect to at MAN so I was postering maybe MAN/MAG itself headed this off for the financial benefit of MAN airline users.

LAX_LHR 8th Nov 2017 21:10

But that's the point I'm making.

It would have been down to the airlines to fight this out if they really wanted the slots, not MAG.

MAG must have seen a business case for interviening in the court ruling, just like a business case has to be found for any financial outgoing, so, there must be airlines waiting in the wings to use those slots for that business case to have been present.

MAG wouldn't have spent time and money on this out of the goodness of their own heart, as they could have very easily just sat back (like the other airports involved did) and just wait for the scenario to be played out.

MANFOD 8th Nov 2017 22:38


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 9950932)
There’s a really good book in TAS showing diversions at MAN over the years! Highly recommended.

Absolutely agree Skip. And some of us are old enough to remember those diversion days back to the 70s & 80s. Could have been the 60s too if I'd caught the aviation hobby at a younger age!

LAX_LHR 9th Nov 2017 02:29

They will have a preffered law firm on call, but I very much doubt MAG has teams of lawyers say round twiddling their thumbs waiting to write letters every now and then.

gojmc 9th Nov 2017 08:50


Originally Posted by LAX_LHR (Post 9950966)
But that's the point I'm making.

It would have been down to the airlines to fight this out if they really wanted the slots, not MAG.

MAG must have seen a business case for interviening in the court ruling, just like a business case has to be found for any financial outgoing, so, there must be airlines waiting in the wings to use those slots for that business case to have been present.

MAG wouldn't have spent time and money on this out of the goodness of their own heart, as they could have very easily just sat back (like the other airports involved did) and just wait for the scenario to be played out.

My opinion is that they wanted to prevent the situation where a single airline is the dominant player at the airport. If any of the top 5 airlines had bought the monarch slots they would have been significantly larger than the next.

southside bobby 9th Nov 2017 09:12

LAX LHR...
Okay okay...regard the MAN slots issue another way.
The first question would be...have any airline/operator in any period of MAN`s history paid £££££ for their slots @ MAN?.
If the answer is no which I think is the answer then why would say EZY give a pile of £££ now to KPMG for a slot whilst lining up behind it would be another EZY flight for which the slot was free..ie obtained originally from the slot co-ordination pool.
You may be right that airlines may require those slots at some stage but the ignominy for MAN of KPMG just holding unused slots until such time as they could coerce money from airlines is worthy of MAN "fighting" to return to the common pool.
BTW what puzzles me is why with 2 R/W`s is MAN slotted & restricted it must be no where near any R/W capacity?.

southside bobby 9th Nov 2017 09:25

sptraveller wrote..."I do think it`s a little bit too easy to overestimate the significance of that decision"....which less understated than my previous is actually a spot on observation.
Asked too was "if you have additional information you are free to share,please do so".

gojmc 9th Nov 2017 11:21


Originally Posted by southside bobby (Post 9951427)
LAX LHR...
Okay okay...regard the MAN slots issue another way.
The first question would be...have any airline/operator in any period of MAN`s history paid £££££ for their slots @ MAN?.
If the answer is no which I think is the answer then why would say EZY give a pile of £££ now to KPMG for a slot whilst lining up behind it would be another EZY flight for which the slot was free..ie obtained originally from the slot co-ordination pool.
You may be right that airlines may require those slots at some stage but the ignominy for MAN of KPMG just holding unused slots until such time as they could coerce money from airlines is worthy of MAN "fighting" to return to the common pool.
BTW what puzzles me is why with 2 R/W`s is MAN slotted & restricted it must be no where near any R/W capacity?.

Parking capacity at peak times is the issue

chaps1954 9th Nov 2017 11:46

Not sure that is a problem at moment with 9 spare stands available with Monarch demise

LAX_LHR 9th Nov 2017 11:49


Originally Posted by southside bobby (Post 9951427)
LAX LHR...
Okay okay...regard the MAN slots issue another way.
The first question would be...have any airline/operator in any period of MAN`s history paid £££££ for their slots @ MAN?.
If the answer is no which I think is the answer then why would say EZY give a pile of £££ now to KPMG for a slot whilst lining up behind it would be another EZY flight for which the slot was free..ie obtained originally from the slot co-ordination pool.
You may be right that airlines may require those slots at some stage but the ignominy for MAN of KPMG just holding unused slots until such time as they could coerce money from airlines is worthy of MAN "fighting" to return to the common pool.
BTW what puzzles me is why with 2 R/W`s is MAN slotted & restricted it must be no where near any R/W capacity?.

Well to answer this, there is another question: if there is no financial value to the slots in terms of cold hard cash for the airlines, why would there be for MAN?

In terms of why would Easyjet pay for a slot now when another was free, it's a rhetorical question a bit like why would someone pay £500 for an airline ticket when another passenger may have only paid £50 for theirs?

The simple fact is, MAN would not have dragged itself through what could have turned out to be a lengthy court process for the sheer craic of it. Even if the slots did end up being of monetary value to Monarch, that's not for MAG to worry about per se, if the airlines wanted them that much, they would pay for them. If no one wanted to pay for them, the value would have been decreased on a sliding scale by KPMG no doubt, which yes, would have taken time but they would have eventually come back into the 'free' fold. This then brings back to the original question, why did MAN want them freed up for 2018 so quickly?

southside bobby 9th Nov 2017 12:57

I am unable to portray/pursue the logic much further I`m afraid LAX LHR either you choose not to regard what does appear to be the reality of the slot situation @ MAN or an attempt or two to counter or challenge your own assumptions of MAG`s commercial reasoning & actions is not understood.
But just one last view,could it just be airlines do not wish to PAY for slots @ MAN simples & MAN wish to have the slots in the common pool as always & re used & not controlled & unused & strong armed by an airline receiver,in this case KPMG.
Please feel free to educate the forum whenever a first slot does change hands for hard cash @ MAN.
It`s nothing personal concerning MAN (it is part of the fold) but it must be a long way from slot selling between incumbents.

ZOOKER 9th Nov 2017 13:00

MANFOD,

If I remember correctly, arrival spacing of between 10 and 15 miles are often common during LVPs. Later on this month, an 18 week duration H24 closure of TWY Alpha between A2 and A3, is, I believe, is due to come into operation. Associated with this is the closure of link AF and RET AE, for the period. This will mean the SW and of TWY A will become an isolated 'turning-loop', which will necessitate 'backtracking' by a/c which fail to vacate at Link 'B'/RET BD.

When 05L is in use, backtracking will also be required for those a/c unable to depart from Link B, (TORA 2036m).

The fog-forecasting became less accurate decades ago, with the closure of the EGCC regional met office, and it's relocation, initially to Daw Bank, and subsequently to Exeter.

Also, the met observations are now made by ATC staff, using the SAMOS system. The dedicated Met Office observers moved out about 10-15 years ago, if I remember correctly?


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:21.


Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.