Manston
 

"RiverOak predicts that from 2024, 680,000 passengers will fly from Manston each year, along with 174,000 tonnes of cargo."

I'd be fascinated to see the figures behind those forecasts.

It's not just the case of how they conjured up the numbers for the forecasts... it will take some serious redevelopment to have the facilities capable of that.

I'm all for the development of air travel in this country, and this is exactly what should be done with sites like Manston.

Along with the figures for the forecasts DaveReidUK would like to see, I'd like to see some form of masterplan (be it a 10 yr, 25 yr or even 50 yr), complete with proposed transport links to and from the airfield etc, before I get enthusiastic about the idea.

It's taken Southend a long time to gain traction, and that's with a decent local population density and its own railway station. Southend for now is still largely feeding off the crumbs that the bigger airports are leaving. Flybe are unlikely to be interested in their future shape; maybe Loganair might take a look and KLM could possibly decide to have another go - otherwise I'm struggling to think of passenger airlines that would look seriously at Manston. Maybe Manston might be better suited to cargo instead but with water on 3 sides, poor road connectivity doesn't encourage freight companies

It'll be a long long time before there is demand at Manston for commercial flights from real airlines that pay non-negative airport fees carrying 500k pax during a year. Maybe it'll happen, but not by 2024

I can't see sufficient passenger potential unless there is a high speed rail connection to London.

rail link
 

How far off of the ' Javelin Train ' routes is Mamston anyway, I know they can run on classic lines being the basically same train well 90% as an IEP (as told to me by A train driver in the know ) who had actually had the chance at driving both the Javelin and it's twin the IEP, plus the Scottish 385, anyway I raise that as that is a fast reliable train service that then runs into the HS1 into central London .

So first off how far is it to a ' Southern rail ' operated station from the Airport?, Is it like DSA, where it's not to distant to the ECML and thus the possibility of a rail link and freight , so could this idea work for manston ?.not being familiar with the area , and only visited the airport once , that was August 91 our Britannia 737 had a low fuel emergency and the pilot had to land at manston , after s long wait we continued onto LBA but back then it looked very quiet and you could see grass growing through the concrete taxiway and Apron.

So after not being in use for how many years now,? How viable is it as I'm sure they'd have to sort out a major refurb for pax flights .
As people have said it might attract KLM and Ryanair, but it's not much good without a decent rail link .
I could see it getting Loganair , but then with Southend having a fantastic rail link , plus the new faster trains coming onstream, if the idea of Manston is to alleviate pressure from Gatwick and maybe Heathrow , it seems it's going to need miracle .

Southend got lucky as they got easyJet , hence the very rapid growth and extra terminal.

Surely though there are old RAF or current RAF like Northolt , why is that not being looked at , and again with a direct rail spur off the new ' Crossrail or GWR ' to it , they could do away with that third runway at Heathrow, if the site was developed and Runwsy extended , new taxiways , Terminal etc .

Perhaps domestic flights could be moved there , freeing valuable slots . It just seems crazy to open manston stuck so far out .
When you have Southend as an alternative and noone can argue that it's not doing well.

But the third runway is going to add to conjestion still in terms of stacking aircraft for LHR . Hence my question about the viability of a redeveloped Northolt Vs this Manston idea .

Ramsgate station is probably the closest, around 10mins by taxi? Thats on the line to London.

Geographically Manston is always going to struggle. If you go East, South or North, theres very little catchment area except water. The further West you go, the closer you get to Gatwick and Stansted. You've also got fast rail links from Ashford to Brussels, Amsterdam and Paris to contend with.

So who is going to fly passengers there other than those mentioned? Stobart maybe? Eastern?

All I can think of here is that there is already some cargo comapny involved who will put a lot money into this for a small hub. I dont know what state the terminal is in, or if any of the lighting, nav or ATC stuff is there and working, or even a fire station but the investment needed would be absolutely huge. Thats before you start thinking about taxiways and runway surface.

Could the Swanscombe Peninsula development be tied to this. Announcements made on the same day!
I know there is a fair distance between the two but are the developers aiming for traffic for the resort?

Where is the Doctor?

Like Dracula he must be rising from his tomb as we speak....................... :eek:

Ahh - just a change of name plate...................... still River Oak peddling a fantasy and praying they don't get permission for anything other than houses,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After an announcement on 6 May 2014,[7] the airport closed on 15 May 2014 with the loss of 144 jobs.[8] When closure was announced, campaign group Save Manston Airport was formed by a local campaigner, along with other groups such as Supporters of Manston Airport, Manston Works and Save Manston Airport Association, as well as the existing Why Not Manston? group. The groups petitioned the local council, Thanet District Council, to issue a compulsory purchase order (CPO) to save the airport, in conjunction with a private indemnity partner. A US-based investment group, RiverOak (RSP), put forward a plan to re-open the airport, with an initial emphasis on cargo and aircraft recycling operations[9] but the council refused, after Riveroak had failed to supply the information it required, including financial status.[10] Riveroak now[when?] plans to attempt the same[clarification needed] using a development consent order (DCO).[11] The proposed development was temporarily renamed Stone Hill Park.[12]

On 2 February 2015, Manston Airport was discussed in a Commons Select Committee evidence session as part of its Smaller Airports Inquiry.[13] The committee's report was published on 9 March 2015.[14]

In January 2016, Thanet District Council announced a new soft market-testing process to find indemnity partners for the compulsory acquisition of the former airport.[15] The next month, the council announced that a total of five expressions of interest had been received, and after responses were received to a follow-up questionnaire, three were carried forward to the next stage of the CPO process.[16]

In the later part of 2018, Manston Airport became part of Operation Stack, and will be used as a queuing point for lorries using the Port of Dover in the event the stretch of the M20 between Junctions 8 and 11 reaches overcapacity.[17]

On 3 July 2019 RSP informed the Planning Inspectorate that they had exchanged contracts with SHP for the purchase of the site, with completion of

Kent population is over 1,5 mln plus you have also part of East Sussex as well. Being stuck between waters and corked by London, getting to any airport is a nightmare at times. Having an airport where I could go away from London, not towards it, would be a blessing.
Plus with brexit looming and seaports congestions expected Manston has a briliant position for a cargo hub.

Kent's population is growing massively. There is a lot of migration from London out to the east and construction of a few large new towns in the pipeline.

For the people in Kent Gatwick or city airport are the best options at the moment. Gatwick involves the M25 and anything can happen. Southend or Stansted means crossing the bridge so forget it.

For the freight side of things post Brexit there my be a demand for more international freight coming in direct so I don't see why this can't work. The airport is right next to the M2 and the rail link via Canterbury and Ashford onto HS1 as per the existing Ramsgate train is viable. Especially if done at night when the passenger services aren't running. There is also a ready made harbour right next door which could easily feed the incoming international frieght into the EU.

The only spanner I see is the new Lower Thames Crossing which will bring Southend into play for Kent.

The project is viable so long as investment in the transport links is forthcoming. Post Brexit I would hope that would be the case with these kinds of projects. Even as an HS2 supporter I would gladly see the project put on hold in order to prioritise the construction of international trade infrastructure short term. Unfortunately at the moment the UK seems obsessed with causing chaos building 'smart' motorways that nobody wants.

One thing Manston has going for it is big support from the locals. That is rare these days in terms of airports and while there are a few Nimby's it is generally regarded as an asset to the county. Post Brexit we are likely to see an abundance of land go up for sale and Manstons value as an airport will possibly be more than as housing.

This thread (or variants of it) has been running since before 2007 - and the arguments and the players are still the same

Manston is in the wrong place and has poor transport links (and no-one is going to pay to upgrade them) - it's like Shannon - useful many many years ago when range was an issue but now???

The owners can see a fortune awaiting if they can get the place turned it houses etc - for a small investment in putting in planning applications they can eventually "prove" there is no alternative

I hope to God we're not still arguing about this in 2031..................

Don't get carried away by the large annual figures quoted i.e.680,000 pax and 170,000 tons of freight. On a daily basis that only amounts to 1863 pax and 466 tons of freight. Not sure how many 747 loads that equates to? 100 tons per load, sounds eminently achievable. Also I recall that from CAA statistics, EUJet were achieving in excess of 1000 pax per day before the plug was pulled on them.

Time will tell so no point in speculating until:

a. Planning go-ahead is given, and :

b. RSP make their detailed plans known.

What happened to Manston being used as a lorry park during/after all the Brexit chaos? Or will all of that be finished by the time this airport re-opens?

Mentioned in the link in post #2 (yours, in fact!):

I have a friend who tried to convince me that last month he witnessed a cargo flight at Manston. I told him the airport was shut but he was having none of it and said he saw what he saw.

The problem I see with Manston as a passenger airport is that it's too far from London to be marketed as a 'London' airport but close enough that London airports are easily accessible to the population of Kent.

As for being a cargo hub in a Brexit era, not every type of cargo is suitable for air transport.

I wish them well, but my suspicion is that after a year or two the new owners will declare the place unviable for aviation use and try and develop it in different ways......

He probably saw one of the old cargo planes that are still stored/stranded there, or at least there used to be!

Maybe, Thanet Flying Club will be able to return! :cool:

"I wish them well, but my suspicion is that after a year or two the new owners will declare the place unviable for aviation use and try and develop it in different ways.."

Most of the cynics on here believe they made that decision years ago and keep the place in their land bank - every so often they talk about reopening but they know that in the long term the Council will fold and it'll be houses as far as the eye can see....... it's worth hundreds of millions IN CASh once it's developed

With a Vickers Viscount of course!

In addition to encouraging regular passenger and cargo operators to use Manston as a destination, it would be useful to consider the use of Manston as a primary diversion airport for the extremely busy and slot constrained London area.
The temporary closure of any of the big 4 London airports puts a significant strain on the remaining resources. The CAA already stipulate Heathrow should not be nominated as a diversion airport for the London area, as it is already at capacity. Gatwick is the second busiest single runway airport in the world and regularly has flow rates imposed to limit traffic flows at peak times of the day. Luton has limited apron capacity at certain times of the day, leaving only Stansted to cope with diversions. Stansted is already very busy with base operators and so cannot handle multiple diversions for long periods.

It would require a national infrastructure policy and a suitable mechanism for funding, but nominating London Manston as a primary diversion airport would have a number of positive benefits:
1. Making Manston the primary diversionary airport for any aircraft with a hijack situation (hopefully relatively rare events nowadays) would allow the high levels of traffic using Stansted to continue uninterrupted. Manston is remote enough to allow the appropriate security services to deal with terrorist incidents away from the major hubs and with minimum disruption to surrounding communities. Kent Police would have to take over any existing activities performed by Essex Police.
2. Airlines using other London airports would be able to nominate London Manston as primary H24 diversionary airport and thereby plan fuel reserves with minimum track miles and eliminate the necessity for holding, thereby reducing required fuel reserves. Terminal facilities and onward ground transport would have to be sufficient for diverted flights. It would provide an environmental benefit from the need to carry and burn less fuel.
3. Aircraft reporting significant or high risk technical emergencies (blown tyre on take-off, undercarriage fault) would be able to divert and avoid blocking the main runways at the other 5 London hub airports. Thereby avoiding any extensive period of closure at the busier airports. Sufficient shared engineering support and ground handling support could be allocated to London Manston in order to clear the runway and move the aircraft to a suitable area for repair. The only downside would be the number of occasions when it would have been preferable to land at the home base airport where the technical fault was not significant, immediate engineering support was locally available and suitable hangar facilities were available had the aircraft landed at its intended destination.

There could be some innovative solution to funding, whereby those aircraft operators choosing to nominate London Manston as an alternate airport in the Air Traffic Flight Plan would be required to pay a nominal fee to do so. The airport operator would then have a significant revenue stream with virtually every flight to the London airports nominating London Manston as diversion, so the total fees would be sufficient to provide the necessary diversion facilities and make a profitable return to allow further investment in airport facilities. A significant revenue stream for relatively few aircraft movements. But a win-win situation for both airlines and airport operators alike.

Can you explain what fees are payable for nominating a diversion airport ?

As far as I am aware, there are currently no fees for nominating a diversion airport in the UK. Airports are open for normal scheduled operations and can accept diversions during these hours subject to capacity.
It was purely a suggestion to fund the operational expense of London Manston (terminal, handling, fire service, ATC and security etc) given there is unlikely to be sufficient revenue from planned aircraft movements alone. A relatively modest flat fee multiplied for most flights to London airports per year should generate a significant amount.
Obviously, if an aircraft did divert and land, it would also pay the more significant landing, parking and handling fees. As would any scheduled movement.

This practise is used in the more remote areas of the world, whereby airport facilities are made available outside of normal operating hours for consideration as ETOPS diversion airports. The airport operator will by prior arrangement extend published operating hours and provide the necessary fire fighting, handling and ATS facilities for a small nominal fee.

In this case, the fee would be an extra cost to the airline but could be offset by the reduction in fuel costs, assuming less distance to divert and elimination of holding requires less fuel to be loaded.

UK airports (such as Durham Tees Valley) often downgrade fire fighting and ATS facilities outside of operating hours for scheduled flight movements. If there is enough demand from airlines to use the airport as a diversion airport outside of operating hours, then it could in certain circumstances generate sufficient additional revenue to extend the hours during which services are provided. Difficult for Durham Tees Valley due to it's location, but probably easier for London Manston being sited near to a major multi-airport hub with 6 London airports supplying traffic.
In 2018, there were 1.1 million aircraft movements to LHR, LGW, STN, LTN, LCY & SEN airports. That's £1.1 million if all flights were charged a £1 fee for using Manston as a primary diversion. £11.8 million if the fee were £10 per flight. Diversion fuel for a flight diverting to Manston from let's say LGW would be less than if it diverted to STN.

OK, thanks for clarifying that.

Do I hear the sound of straws being clutched at ?

"It would require a national infrastructure policy and a suitable mechanism for funding,"

I think you've shot it all down with your opening statement................

The train journey is 1h20 because it isn't high speed after Ashford. It would need upgrading to HS in order to cut travel time. Saying that if this was a freight airport and that freight travelled on the railway at night it wouldn't really matter whether it was HS or not. I do think Manston needs to concentrate on freight to make it work. There is no need to limit it to night flights if there is no daytime traffic to worry about but that would go for the other end too. Fedex fly from the USA during the day currently so if they can find enough business after Brexit to make it work then who knows.

"There is no need to limit it to night flights"

I suspect the locals and the greens will disagree strongly................... nobody wants night flights from their local airfield

Trouble is, Manston isn't actually on the railway. You would either need to build a spur from the Canterbury-Ramsgate line (a mile or two I would guess, depending on start / finish point) or build a new rail / road freight interchange on the existing line and truck the freight a short distance to the airport before unloading it again. Perhaps not the most efficient way of doing things.

In any case, is there really a market for rail / air freight transfer? My feeling is that the two modes of transport serve quite different freight markets.

Latest update on Manston courtesy of the local newspaper. RSP already spent £15M on pursuing the Development Consent Order (DCO) and the purchase of the Jentex Fuel site.

The figure quoted from DCO documents is that £16,5M has been agreed for the purchase of the airport site.

I can't quote a source, but, it is believed that RSP expect to expend £100M on developing the airport. At the time I attended a presentation by RSP, they stated their intention to have 10 aprons capable of taking 747 sized aircraft, before re-opening.