PDA

View Full Version : Manchester Airport New Terminal


Go-Go Juice
23rd Dec 2000, 18:07
So Runway 2 is ready but were do they expect to put all the extra aircraft that they are expecting? Maybe Terminal 4 on the south side? Your thoughts please.

HugMonster
23rd Dec 2000, 18:29
Give 'em a break! They need to upgrade the ILS to Cat III yet, buy another ILS for the other end, put in a parallel taxyway... :)

------------------
Breeding Per Dementia Unto Something Jolly Big, Toodle-pip

E cam
24th Dec 2000, 04:43
Outline plans have already been drawn up for a southside terminal. I don't think the neighbours have been told yet......

Scottie Dog
25th Dec 2000, 03:38
Amazing how things seem to develop! The last presentation that I saw for EGCC development made no mention of T4.

It would appear at the present time that T2 will have an extension to its pier to have stands 216-219 served and an almost doubling of the terminal size itself. Future plans then show an increase in remote parking to the north of stand 71. The final plan indicates that apron space will be extended around the northern pier of T2 to gives stands on the opposite side of the pier from 215-219.

Building a terminal on the southside would, in my own personal opinion, be a mistake with major problems for interlining passengers. Transfering T2 to T3 is a big enough problem already. There is a rumour that a connection might be built linking T1 and T2 from around the stand 22 to 200 area.

Have a happy Christmas one and all, and may 2001 be not only a prosperous but a safe year for us all. :)

Scottie Dog



------------------
Happiness is a runway without a hump - 06R/24L

niteflite01
25th Dec 2000, 04:26
Stuff for the expansion of T2 will be given the official and public go ahead once R24L / 06R is operating fully.

I've heard the same one about the link between T1 and 2 also - also in the stand 22 to 200 area. As anyone who visits Manch will testify the walk along the nicely lit but over long "Tube" between the two terminals is a pain. Especially when the travelators seem to be broken in the going home direction each night.

Makes an EG into not so much of an EG http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

The staff car park never seemed so far away!

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

[This message has been edited by niteflite01 (edited 25 December 2000).]

EGCC4284
5th Jan 2001, 06:40
Go Go Juice

I see that your trying to cause trouble again.

I think your real name is Swampy ????

Any chance of any more O/T

------------------
A BIT EXTRA FOR MUM.

[This message has been edited by EGCC4284 (edited 07 January 2001).]

Wasps
5th Jan 2001, 11:58
I see they still have EGs in ATC then niteflight. Good to see the old traditions kept up.
http://www.geocities.com/thehugmonster/animations/bounce.gif

------------------
Live for today, learn from yesterday, look to tomorrow and rest this afternoon.

160to4DME
5th Jan 2001, 16:43
Scottie Dog is quite correct; there are no plans for Terminal 4.

I saw the latest architect's plans just 2 days ago. There are still many variables and possibilities going into the melting pot, most of which Scottie mentioned, and on which he was spot on.

Next definite development will indeed be the extension of Terminal 2 to take in stands 215-219.

The connection between Terminals 1 and 2 has been put a little on the back burner, as the general opinion is that it would not create significant increase in capacity, not help alleviate the taxiway congestion problems.

Remember the original idea years ago that there would be a remote pier where the remote stands currently are opposite Terminal 2?

That is currently the hot option people are looking at, but the underground link will NOT be from Terminal 2 as originally conceived, as it is felt that there is currently insufficient terminal space in T2 to cope with an extra 20 wide body gates

The latest plans show the demolition of part of the satellite at the end of Pier C in T1, losing stands 31 and 32. From there will extend underground travellators to the remote pier.

Although Taxiway Papa will be lost with the new construction, the demolition of stands 31 and 32 will facilitate a two way taxiway at the end of Pier C....No more congestion in the cul-de-sac !!!

This option will also mean that there will be uninterrupted access to Terminal 2 for aircraft, routing via Taxiway November whilst work goes on at the end of Pier C. There will be a temporary link, similar to Papa to achieve a 2 way flow during the work.

To keep the balance of remote stands, new stands will be created to the west of Taxiway November; aircraft will park nose-in, facing west. In the very long term, plans show this area could be used to extend Terminal 2 further. I also noted that there were 2 access roads planned for this part of Terminal 2 as well as a short term multi-storey car park.....obviously to avoid congetion at the main entrance to Terminal 2, or perhaps (and not my quote) for a low-cost operator to have their own gates and check-in facilities. http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

As I said though....all very fluid at the moment and nothing has yet been rubber stamped, except for the incorporation of stands 215-219.

Happy New Year all :)

[This message has been edited by 160to4DME (edited 05 January 2001).]

doyouneedadefuel
8th Jan 2001, 03:46
Why do away stds 31 & 32.
Just move the security post & fuel farm further west of the airport.
Prehaps the Romper car park.
That would solve congestion a beam c pier, also keep security and the fuellers happy.

EGCC4284
8th Jan 2001, 05:08
Keep the fuellers happy,
Now you are winding me up
and no you can't have a defuel,

Shaggy Sheep Driver
8th Jan 2001, 14:18
I remember reading that the airport was planning a second rail link to the south west - to the Chester/Manchester line. Would this be to service a future south-side terminal, or just link up to the present rail station on the Crewe/Manchester line?

Anyone know?

SSD

ShotOne
8th Jan 2001, 20:02
I don't know but it would make a lot of sense since there is already a spur line there which has been used in the construction of R2. No doubt whatever happens the notinmybackyard brigade will protest furiously.

Go-Go Juice
13th Jan 2001, 19:45
Runway 2 is operational at last!
Well at least for Ravenair. Sorry everybody else will have to wait until February!

niteflite01
14th Jan 2001, 16:58
And even then they may have to wait a bit longer....................

Oh yeah - EG's are a VERY rare event these days. VERY VERY rare. Too much work to do http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/frown.gif

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

[This message has been edited by niteflite01 (edited 14 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by niteflite01 (edited 14 January 2001).]

BillTheCoach
18th Jan 2001, 03:57
Well it seems that with just two weeks to go before the opening of the much heralded 172 million Runway 2 Manchester Airport PLC have just woken up to the fact that they will be unable to accommodate any more airlines as there is no office space available in any of the 3 terminals nor Commonwealth House nor Olympic House - companies are only being offered accommodation in the 'prestigious' World Freight Terminal - 1.5 miles away from Terminal 1 !

So who exactly is responsible for this gaff? Surely it would be prudent to build sufficent office accommodation to match the needs of your customers ? Even the 'Airport' pc game insists you have sufficent office space !

heavy_landing
18th Jan 2001, 04:16
As I understand it, the new rail link is designed to transport us mortals to ....the new staff car park??!!??

slizer
18th Jan 2001, 14:18
I heard a rumour that the new staff car park was to be at Liverpool airport! Transport would be by barge up the Manchester ship canal! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif

Pitot_Head
18th Jan 2001, 15:28
Chaps,

What about giving MAN management a break?? R2 is a testimony to the sheer dedication and determination of the R2 Project Team. Airport development, like any construction affecting the local community, has a huge lead time and involves many parties.

In the interests of safety, building the infrastructure to get us in and out initially, surely beats the construction of a new terminal and subsequent enforced rise in rwy utilisation to justify it?

My compliments go to them for having the balls to run the project in this logical order. Whereever they choose to build T4, at least they've got their priorities right.


Keep 'em straight and level!

Shaggy Sheep Driver
18th Jan 2001, 15:52
Actually, Pitot Head, I think R2 is a testimoney to how the big guns will always win at a so called Public Enquiry...

SSD

160to4DME
18th Jan 2001, 16:07
Pitot-Head

No MAN bashing intended, I think.

People laughed at the notion of a second runway when it was first suggested.

It's a testament to dilligence, foresight, ambition and sheer hard work that we now have R2.

Only one thing missing......

BRING BACK GILL THOMPSON !!!

His legacy was that whilst in charge, not a single airline pulled out of MAN.

And a gentleman to boot, too.

slizer
18th Jan 2001, 17:45
Pitot_Head.

Oops Sorry. I thought I was just demonstrating a sense of humour.
However if you think that the runway should come first and the rest of the infrastructure later, then I can only hope that you are right. From my many years in and out of MAN (along with many similar airports throughout Europe), I constantly experience problems due to ground facilities shortages. Manchester is a classic example for having to push back off stand, to a remote location, with pax on board, whilst waiting for a slot, because there are not enough stands and another aircraft is waiting to 'dock'.
Cast your mind back as well to the end of last December when the freezing fog helped contribute to lengthy delays at Manchester due to insufficient de-icing equipment and machines.
I am all for the new runway and applaud those who have achieved it. Clearly though, if the aircraft movements are on the increase, then the infrastructure must be in place to support this. Without it there will be longer delays leading to airlines and passenger becoming less than pleased with the airport, resulting in 'bad press'. This would not be the accolade which we would all like Manchester Airport to receive.

Pitot_Head
18th Jan 2001, 17:57
Slizer

Fair comments. Having previously been in mgt at an int apt in the south-east, I know the fine balance that needs to be tread, between offering airlines what they want and keeping congestion and ground holding to a minimum.

Unfortunately, as you rightly say, it is the chaps in the LH and RH seats that bear the brunt of pax frustrations, not those who above who put you in that position.

Let's hope MAN don't overschedule slots viz-a-viz capacity...or is that me being an idealist??!!!

Onan
18th Jan 2001, 19:54
I must agree, to a certain extent, with Shaggy Sheep but add that political expedience also plays a factor. And having said that, if MAN ever needs a new terminal it will have to be alongside T1 or T2. I don't think there is a government with balls enough to allow further encroachment on the Bollin. Any way, if the airport expands any further west it will be in Liverpool :-))

poohbear
18th Jan 2001, 21:31
Shaggy,
There are plans for a new rail link to the airport mainly because of the need to increase the rail capacity from Crewe to Manchester. A new passenger rail line (using an existing freight line) will run from Sandbach to Middlewich, Northwich , Altringham under the runway to a new rail station next to the present one, then on to Manchester.

Cmdr Data
19th Jan 2001, 00:04
Wait for the local communities to get used to 24L/06R and throw plans on the table for the new terminal. As it stands, the new runway is of little use without one. My personal views of course!

niteflite01
19th Jan 2001, 01:01
Apart from greatly increasing the movement rate of course http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

Eventually........

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

BillTheCoach
21st Jan 2001, 02:55
I agree that MAN management does a good job but how do u explain the irrational policies operated by the Property Management people - surely if you build a runway to increase business and you already know you are short of space for stands, office etc. you build more so that when your new runway opens, you have ALL of the facilities in place ?

MAN are in the process now of reshuffling tenants in T1 so that BM's transatlantic operations (which they only seem to have just heard about) can be fitted in.

If we operated our business the way they do we would be out of business very quickly !

niteflite01
21st Jan 2001, 05:19
And yet I hear MAPLC has just bought East Mids and Southampton from National Express.

Is this true?

If so, they obviously know what they're doing.

I wonder will LPL be next??

There's a rumour for you http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/tongue.gif

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

Capt Homesick
23rd Jan 2001, 04:02
There is a fast way along the travelator tube between T1 and T2, even if the travelator itself is u/s.
Get a trolley, put something heavy on the front (a flight case is ideal), get a good running start and ride the handlebars. You can get a good turn of spped out of those things, and it's more fun than the travelators.
Of course, it gets a litle embarrassing in full uniform, so it's worth keeping your raincoat on, and borrowing a hat from your major competitor... :)

niteflite01
23rd Jan 2001, 23:04
Ahhhh so you're the one I've seen, Capt Homesick :) :) :)

------------------
"Go around..I say again...go around"

Yogi-Bear
24th Jan 2001, 21:18
T2 was designed from the outset for further expansion. The west pier to be extended to match the east pier with same no. of airbridges. The main hall has a temporary west wall as does the adjacent west pier facing the road. This will enable a 50% increase in floor area and check-ins, etc. If and when all this is done, T2 will be entirely symetrical about its centre-line. In addition, a remote pier was planned to be built out on the grass divider beyond the apron to be served by a dipping travelator, a la CDG T1. This may now have been forgotten since BA got their own house. Total capacity of T1 + T2 was intended to match RW capacity. Plans of mice and men?

Strawberry
24th Jan 2001, 23:14
Well as long as they keep enough space to one side for my luvly Tomahawks....

"..of course we can keep it high and tight.."

Shaggy Sheep Driver
26th Jan 2001, 18:32
Thanks for the info, poobear. Will the rail route Northwich to the airport go as far east as Altrincham? I'd envisage a link from about Ashley to the airport station.

Any southside terminal would have to be somewhere around the 06R end of the new runway in Mobberley - there isn't room opposite the current terminals unless they fill in the Bollin Valey at Style - not an impossibility given what they've got away with so far :~(

SSD

doyouneedadefuel
3rd Mar 2001, 02:37
Is it correct that plans have been drawn up for the new T2 satellite/s, rumour control says it will where the cargo sheds, fuel farm and hanger 4 reside at the moment?
Also Charlie Pier will be demolished to allow for better flow of taxing aircraft to and from T2.

DELTA 1CHARLIE
3rd Mar 2001, 03:24
Charlie Pier is in T1 - the pier that contains stands 21 to 31!!

Go-Go Juice
3rd Mar 2001, 14:08
I have just seen the development plans for Manchester. The development plan covers the development of the airport upto 2020.
The first stage of development is to extend T2 and to extend T3 from 55, both these extensions will allow aircraft stands on both sides of the pier. The final part of the first development stage is to have a satellite pier on the 230's and 80's stands now with an underground link. this development should be finished by 2010.
The rest of the development upto 2020 will allow another satellite pier which will be situated where the fuel farm and the cargo sheds are which will be connected to the first satellite link. To make room for this new satellite and to ease congestion Charlie pier will be demolished and Bravo pier realigned. It is rumoured that the satellites will be connected to both terminals.

lee1
3rd Mar 2001, 17:42
On a slightly different note, does anyone know of any new services for 2001 starting from Manchester. I know BM are starting services to destinations in the USA but if anyone knows of any other new flights I would like to know, particularly what airline it. Many thanks.

Silkman
3rd Mar 2001, 20:04
Lee1
Bulgarian Air Charter with Tu 154s
Malmo Aviation 146s/RJ???
Excel 738s/762s
Sun Express 738s
also Icelandair 757s operating for Scandic over the weekends.African Star now looks like an August start up and Transaero now put on hold as BA and SU have objected to the slots.

EGCC4284
5th Mar 2001, 03:46
"tell you what, It's busy here"

------------------
A BIT EXTRA FOR MUM.

BillTheCoach
5th Mar 2001, 19:13
And still the ex-MAN property boom continues with every commerical letting agent in south Manchester saying " Oh are you a company moving out of the airport ?" to every prospective tenant !

If MAPLC take a bashing here, it's cos they deserve it, perhaps they should concentrate on getting MAN right before tackling other airports.

Heck, they even have Business Development Managers telling their clients they have to move out ! Now what was is that to run a business !

BillTheCoach
22nd Mar 2001, 05:50
Now ever one to give credit where credit is due MAPLC are busy redeeming themselves by sorting out office accommodation for all those annoyed tenants !

10 out of ten for the effort and for the support shown by the Business Development guys ! Your work is much appreciated by all concerned.

P.S. The cappuncino is on !

SFly
22nd Mar 2001, 06:11
Now, maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't it cause a problem at T1 if they knocked down C pier? There are only 4 other T1 stands with air bridges . . . and taking away all those on C would cause flying from T1 a bit of a bother, would it not? I think that they should extend T2 northward, and bend it to go on the northern part of the apron (near 251) and not bother with the southern part of the T2 pier, not needing to touch T1 in any way (I'm partial to T1, as you can see!)
;)
SFly

Togamax
23rd Mar 2001, 05:22
Sorry to sound a bit sarcastic, but having recently transferred to MAN from LHR, could someone tell me if the airport really was designed and built by Fischer Price?
The Terminals seem to numbered in the order of 3 , 1, then 2 , anyone over 6,1" has to duck when entering Terminal 2 from the funny tube thing (this is not normally a problem as I'm nackered after the long walk with the many unserviceable walky bits), the staff west car park is somewhere near Warrington, the staff bus takes me to the wrong place!, and the second runway seems to be there for decoration purposes only.
Maybe its just me, but having been based at a few european airfields, its hardly 21st century flying is it chaps!!!!!

spannersatcx
23rd Mar 2001, 13:28
I think it is because T1 was built 1st, T2 was built 2nd and BA wanted their own and T3 was built 3rd. I guess rather than confuse everybody there was no need to rename the terminals.

Anti Skid On
23rd Mar 2001, 15:11
T3 was built?!? - I thought it was merely a part of T1 renamed to differentiate between the domestic and international stuff (although don't Emirates and AA use T3 too...???)

Was a bit weird when T2 opened, just about the same time Arnie was doing his T2!!

SFly
24th Mar 2001, 00:02
Anti Skid On . . . you are partly right.

T3's Pier A has always been there (as T1's pier A). When they decided on T3, they built a new 45 degree angle pier (gates 50 - 55), built a bit of building in between it and pier A, and then incorperated all of that into T3.

Togamax, do you read right-to-left? I believe the order would be T2, T1, T3? Something like that? Anyway . . . only 6ft clearance? I am over 6ft in height and never had that problem!

SFly

SFly
24th Mar 2001, 07:07
NOBODY IS ANSWERING MY QUESTION!!! How are they going to get T1 together with 3 stands with airbridges?

Why don't they just pave the grass south of papa to alleviate congestion between the Terminals . . . I think the demolition of C is a huge mistake on Manchester's part . . . does anyone agree?

Please answer! http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/confused.gif
SFly

160to4DME
24th Mar 2001, 17:46
<< NOBODY IS ANSWERING MY QUESTION!!! How are they going to get T1 together with 3 stands with airbridges? >>

I refer to my post on this thread from ages ago that it is only the satellite at the end of Pier C which will be totally demolished.
I haven't seen any plans suggesting otherwise, and as such, I stand by my original post http://www.pprune.org/ubb/NonCGI/cool.gif

SFly
24th Mar 2001, 18:46
Ahh, I see 160to4DME . . . Well I would hope you mare right! I was acutally reffering to what Go-go Juice said,

"To make room for this new satellite and to ease congestion Charlie pier will be demolished and Bravo pier realigned. It is rumoured that the satellites will be connected to both terminals."

I don't know where everybody hears these rumors, but who has the truth?

SFly
5th Jan 2002, 03:03
Thought I'd bring this old favorite back to the top!

As it is almost a year since this topic was added to, I just wanted to ask if there are any more developments or confirmations on any of the issues covered in the thread.

Your comments and information please.

SFly <img src="smile.gif" border="0">