It is inevitable that as we get more widebody services between now and the summer of 2025, more remote stands will be used for these services.
We have 8 widebody contact stands now at T2 (4 on the new Pier and 4 at legacy T2). This will of course improve once the next Pier is opened (expected during summer 2025). However, from many previous experiences flying with both Jet2 and Easyjet, remote stands are sometimes better, as you can board from both doors which makes the overall process much quicker. Once Easyjet transfer to T2 there will be plenty of remote stands for them.

I did notice recently on the new Pier of T2, de-boarding was being done via the airbridge and steps at the back of the aircraft, whilst boarding was only taking place via the airbridge on a KLM 737-800, this was on the narrowbody side of the Pier (Gate A3 I think, so stand 103).

Mr Mac - I agree with your take on bussing stands and wouldn't propose them as a long-term solution for long-haul flights. However, during major terminal reconstruction and essential taxiway work-in-progress, I contend that it is preferable to tolerate the inconvenience of bussing temporarily rather than to suspend air services. As long as work is visibly underway to provide contact stands once construction is complete. It can't be done on a "jam tomorrow" basis where tomorrow never comes [Piccadilly Platforms 15 & 16 versus Dinosaur Grayling and HM Treasury springs to mind!]. But we do know that construction of a new pier is the issue at MAN - and that is a very positive development from a long-term perspective. Short term pain for long term gain, worth it in the end. A familiar issue at all major airports, not just MAN.

IIRC, similar issues prevailed in Summer 2019. Back then, I believe that the major carriers took turns to use bussing stands (pre-Pier 1) on an agreed rota basis. Maybe another poster can clarify?

Trouble with Manchester, it is always jam tomorrow. They were bussing long haul in T2 back in 2002. We were bussed to our remote BWIA L1011-except we were taken by mistake to a Virgin 747 that was also remote boarding at the same time. The pax had to convince the driver we were at the wrong aircraft. So in 20+ years it's not rocket progress.

There has been a lot of chat of US services, but no mention of the dire offerings to Canada. I have used Air Canada & the previous Rouge many times and always surprised how full they are on such a pathetic short season of just a few weeks. I used the AC A330 last year & all three cabins were full both ways. At least Transat keep some kind of service going year round. However, when you see Gatwick with Multiple Toronto's, Ottawa, Montreal & Vancouver the lack lustre MAN-Canada is hugely disappointing.

[QUOTE=OzzyOzBorn;11413094]Contact stands for widebody aircraft are the ideal solution. However, bussing in the short to medium term shouldn't be a dealbreaker if there is money to be made. This is common at many other airports, including at least one aspirational name in the Gulf. Passengers will cope until terminal construction catches up. We must remember too that these widebody aircraft visiting MAN do not all overlap with their timings.



Agreed. But the seven TCX A330's have not been backfilled by other carriers.



May I invite you to elaborate with some data-led observations?[/QUOTE

You may,

however data-led observations mean Jack to me.
Being out there and a part of it does. I need not elaborate.

Weren’t there plans at some point for a Terminal 4 on the other side of the runways?

I am feeling quite old as I was referring to the original B767-200/300 (MD11 in 1992!) days before the rebrand and the US Airways merger. I recall a certain poster being adamant that AA would operate ORD/JFK/PHL and CLT post merger, they threw it all away IMHO.

​​​​​​​You do need to elaborate if you want your comments to make any sense.

In the last few years as the 767/757 got older they got more and more unreliable and there wer numerous cancellations due to one or the other breaking down

Without knowing the individuals (HOVIS and STOCKPORTCOUNTY), the view from the inside seems to be that the staffing issues from last year haven't gone away and need to be sorted out before there can be realistic talk about further expansion. Again, it might just be a perception based on the press coverage, but it appeared that MAN was impacted worse (or as badly) as others.

​​​​​​​Planning departments with a range of possible destinations to chose from might be taking that into account, or at least are asking the questions and are not being re-assured by the replies they are getting.

I think the problem is the handling agents as they have in recent years run on a minimum staffing and on minimum wages.I went to a job fair once and the offer was terrible and I think it is worse now than then but the airlines themselves are much to blame by driving costs down, its no suprise that people don`t want to work for them

Agree GHA wages are linked to turn rates airlines pay not to mention the penalty performance clauses in the SGHA. The carriers get exactly what they pay for. Self handling has in some cases helped but is not the answer for all.

Decades ago, it was briefly looked at in the Moss Lane area. It was in Cheshire so the planning environment was difficult to say the least and there were numerous issues over aircraft ground movements.

Site is now in the safety area for 23L/05R. Anywhere else, the site is too narrow due to the Bollin Valley.

.

Yes, absolutely dire towards the end. I recall they tried to salvage things by putting a 787 on the ORD route, but they'd burned through far too much goodwill by then.

The 787 reliability was worse of all .American based just three at Chicago at the time rotating mainly to Asia Early mx issues experienced by these frames meant that late inbound from Asia directly resulted in delay and more likely cancellations of Manchester service .After a hanger stay the aircraft flew west again and those for Manchester found themselves of a BA or AA flight to LHR

That's not correct. VAIL is still there - look at the AOC holder to whom A330 G-VRAY is registered. It was put in place for a very specific reason and it wasn't money laundering or tax dodging or anything else of that nature.

I was wrong (again!) G-VRAY only seems to do Caribbean and TLV, it hasn't been to the US for ages. Yet the routes it flies are often flown by the rest of the fleet. What is the very specific reason they need one (more) aircraft on a different AOC that does this? It's still filed as VS/VIR "Virgin" so they have a 2nd AOC which uses the parents ticketing and flight planning, unlike say BA EuroFlyer. I'm intrigued as to why? Has it even been to MAN since?
G-INFO : https://www.caa.co.uk/aircraft-regis...earch-g-info/#
G-VRAY Aircraft operated by AOC holder : VIRGIN ATLANTIC INTERNATIONAL LTD whereas the rest are VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIRWAYS LTD

The second AOC was established in 2015 as part of an arrangement to securitise Virgin Atlantic's Heathrow slots.

Sky News story at the time here explains all.

Confirmed tax and liability exercise :)

Didn’t BA do something similar with British Airways Limited owning some of their slots ?

Ozzy
There are large airports in Europe that do busing , Frankfurt being a prime example. However if you notice all of these steps are covered and buses pull up close in bad weather. I don’t think I have seen covered steps in Manchester.

Cheers
Mr Mac

Does using more bussing stands need more staff?