Manchester runway shortened for car parking

[ShotOne]

The full idiocy is masked by a bland NOTAM but Manchester Airport UK has effectively reduced the available length of Rwy 23R by converting taxiway J to a car park! They will no doubt argue the runway is fully available... but only by backtracking which would cause major delays. So in summary, MAN Airport plc is increasing noise pollution, fuel burn, engine wear -just to boost its parking revenue. You really couldn't make it up!!

[Shot Nancy]

Car park or aeroplane park?

Maybe taking a leaf out of YMML and YSSY's management book who make most money from non-aviation services.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Old news, this venture is almost over now, it's been like this for months. It hasn't caused any operational issues. As for increasing fuel burn, why is that?

[ShotOne]

"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn, pollution and engine maintenance cost and larger noise footprint. "Hasn't caused operational issues" :not if someone else is paying the bills and you don't care about the noise

[iggy]

Do not kill me but lower thrust settings are the ones burning more fuel, if I recall correctly my ATPL ground school years.

[ShotOne]

Are you seriously putting forward that shortening runways reduces fuel burn?? Let's get those cones out everywhere then!

Overhaul costs for big fan engines are certainly not "negligible". Although clearly they're less than negligible to MAPLC which gets all the car parking revenue but pays none of the resultant costs

[Musket90]

Taxiway Juliet holding area for 23R had already been closed for a significant period for surface repairs before the closure period was extended for the temporary car park. It'll be back to normal in a couple of weeks.

[str12]

Car Parking is where most of the money is made, not aircraft movements or even retail. If you look at it from the perspective of the £££s then most UK airports are Car Parks that have a runway nearby.

Sad but true.

[underfire]

"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn, pollution and engine maintenance cost and larger noise footprint

Actually, the others are correct, lower thrust setting is lower temp and increased pollutants. This is why idle thrust creating less pollutants on ARR is a myth. (and why one does not see it advertised as a benefit for RNP-AR)

Increased fuel burn.... given the duration of thrust, and the altitude difference, I would not say that.

Increased noise footprint, yes a little, but duration is less, so the resultant exposure footprint is less with higher thrust setting due to the altitude difference.

the best scenario is to jump up quick and level off getting clean...more initial noise, but smaller exposure footprint, with better fuel burn (less pollutants)

[Major Cong]

MAN only needs one runway and LGW controllers:D

[ShotOne]

If you've invented an engine whose emissions decrease with increasing power, get it patented quick. I'll happily invest.

However you stack this, there's no upside for anyone other than MAPLC. This is a (thankfully short-term) cash grab by the airport paid for by the airlines and local residents.

[tescoapp]

You need to do a bit of calculus on the flight profiles to get the total emissions from point A until point B.

Less power low down means the time taken to get to point B increases and the fuel flow reduction from increase in altitude is not seen for a longer period.

Until the extra fuel burned is more than the maint cost of doing full chat departures all the time reduced thrust is here to stay.

The airlines will be quite thankful that most environmentalists don't really get that all calculus does is let you work out the area under a wiggly line in a graph.

[Council Van]

Just turn 23L into a permanent car park as it's not really that good as a second runway.

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn

Actually, to burn less fuel you would take off at full thrust, which would mean that you get to the higher cruise levels quicker, however we don't do that as the engine wear is greater.

[ShotOne]

A shorter take-off roll will mostly require a higher flap setting which increases fuel burn. But I agree, the fuel is small beer compared to the increased engine wear, particularly since rwy length doesn't affect climb to higher cruise levels, just to acceleration alt

[chaps1954]

Major Cong Manchester has some fine controllers thanks but the departures off 23s isn`t as good as Gatwick as most have to do a right turn before going left round Mobberley/Knutsford

[TURIN]

However you stack this, there's no upside for anyone other than MAPLC. This is a (thankfully short-term) cash grab by the airport paid for by the airlines and local residents.

Oh I dunno, the MROs who look after the engines will be happy. :8

[tescoapp]

Maybe they can use the cash from the parking to get rid of the hump?

I did try my best for 5 years to flatten it using an aircraft but it didn't work.