Manchester-3

[OzzyOzBorn]

Yes, the issue with QR's A350's seems to apply to sixteen specific aircraft only (not the entire fleet). My understanding is that there is a dispute concerning alleged accelerated deterioration of paintwork. Perhaps others know more?

[Squawk 6042]

How many gates at MAN can handle an A380?

[Johnny F@rt Pants]

Still just 1 that I’m aware of without using remote parking of course.

[SWBKCB]

So would that put the EK and QR on the ground at the same time?

[Squawk 6042]

Thank-you JFP.

And SWBKCB, yes, that was my thinking behind the question.

[roverman]

Two steps forward......

Great to see those US routes flying again this week. As always, it's a mixed picture on long haul recovery. The FCO is today advising against travel to Ethiopia due to armed civil unrest there. Ball hits stumps on another promising route (ET). The toll on African routes ex MAN has been high due to this or other political machinations.

[AircraftOperations]

SWBKCB

But as EK and QR operate in different terminals, it might not be relevant anyway.

[MANFAN]

Squawk 6042

Qatar A380 would have to be put on remote possibly on the western apron opposite T2.

Pier 3 is planned to have 2 A380 capable stands when built…

[dave59]

Why are none of the new A gates at Terminal 2 not 380 compatible? Pier 3 could be years away. They converted the 1960's pre-fab hospital building for EK so what's the big problem with one of the new A gates?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

The plan was to accommodate A380s on Pier 3 at T2.

[easyflyer83]

However un practical B pier is today, it wasn’t exactly the pre-fab but more architecture of its 1960’s day.

RE: A380’s, we have stand 12 which is utilitarian admittedly. If it comes to pass, the QR 380 is unexpected. The A380 isn’t the prolific beast many thought it would be. Even on a QR level, nobody expected them to bring the A380 back into service so quickly, if at all. Even so, Qatar are on the record as saying buying the 380 was a strategic mistake.

The 380 at MAN will see QR potentially offering F on the route incidentally.

[CabinCrewe]

I wouldn't worry about an influx of A380’s. Not going to happen.
Wonder if Scoot on a double drop would be of interest at MAN given we were told of the gaping hole that is BKK, and pending Thai route over the years.

[Stockportcounty]

VS dropping MAN - BGI end of winter schedule

[Rutan16]

No just seasonal will be back in winter schedules

[Stockportcounty]

Correct Rutan,

Lazy post. I should have clarified 😉

[CabinCrewe]

Suggestion ‘elsewhere’ that VS EDI BGI might also be curtailed even before starting which doesn’t bode well. Though to be honest did seem ambitious.

[MANFAN]

Are any of the current T2 stands (legacy & new) compatible for the A380?
Could the QR A380 not go on a T2 airbridge stand for attachment at door L2 and then steps for L1/L4/L5??

[easyflyer83]

Boarding a narrow body like that is one thing (and quite efficient actually) but I imagine it’s a nightmare for a widebody the size of an A380.

I might be wrong but I don’t think any contact stands are compatible with the exception of stand 12 in T1.

[MANFAN]

Indeed…airbridge and stairs or just stairs at both front and rear doors can be more efficient.
This can only be done though on pier B in T1 and the T3 stands.

I know Pier 3 is going to be used more for wide body, but wouldn’t it have been more efficient to add double airbridge’s on some of the stands on Pier 1…as per most if the stands on Pier C in T1…

[OzzyOzBorn]

Unfortunately, at the time Pier 1 was constructed, MAG's plans never envisaged the covid catastrophe which has placed all further T2 rebuild work in the freezer till further notice. Piers 1 and 3 were both part of the medium-term vision, with each playing a slightly different role. Now, the airport must make the best of what it ended up with when the music stopped. With a 'glass half full' perspective, MAN is darned lucky that the main Terminal 2 extension and Pier 1 were completed just in time (though MAG's accountants might disagree). I don't know when / if construction of Pier 3 will progress (any input on this welcome), but it is wise to be braced for a very long wait. MAG isn't noted for spending freely at the best of times.

On the matter of the Qatar A388 schedule, it remains to be seen whether this happens or for what duration if it does. The airline is in dispute with Airbus over alleged rapidly deteriorating paintwork on a number of A350's which have been grounded in consequence. Until this is resolved, it means allocating other types to cover some routes (note that not all of the A350 fleet is affected). Once the A350 fleet is fully returned to service, cover from the A388 to MAN may not be required. Keep in mind that Qatar Airways has a large fleet of B77W's as well as A350's available, and DOH-MAN is a 3 x Daily route (covid aside). The additional capacity implied by running one of those flights as an A388 isn't a huge step-up.

[MANFAN]

Until this is resolved, it means allocating other types to cover some routes (note that not all of the A350 fleet is affected). Once the A350 fleet is fully returned to service, cover from the A388 to MAN may not be required. Keep in mind that Qatar Airways has a large fleet of B77W's as well as A350's available, and DOH-MAN is a 3 x Daily route (covid aside). The additional capacity implied by running one of those flights as an A388 isn't a huge step-up.[/QUOTE]


Yes, of course, no one could have predicted what was going to happen.
My question is though, why weren’t double airbridge’s considered on Pier 1 during the planning stages, at least on the side where the widebody stands are located. From the original plans I notice there are only to be 2 double airbridge stands on Pier 3 when that materialises…
Pier C in T1 has plenty…yes they were handy years ago when widebody’s used to dominate T1, I just thought it was odd given how more efficient the boarding and de-boarding could be…hindsight hey, a wonderful thing!

But yes, we are where we are and are lucky to have so many destinations served from a regional airport!
Hopefully there will be justification for MAG to get back into the original plan in the medium term…because like you say, they aren’t big spenders at the best of times!

[CabinCrewe]

Half these slot allocations, will as in previous years, never come to fruition.

[MANFAN]

Found this online from https://www.acl-uk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MAN-Capacity-Declaration-S22.pdf

Manchester Airport proposes to amend adhoc/in-season terminal capacity in early 2022 to reflect the proving of T2 Extension. This will see an increase in T2 capacity linked to airline moves, with total capacity controlled by a shadow limit equivalent to the combined historic demand of future T2 airlines plus a small allowance for flexibility. This overarching cap will mean that as T2 capacity increases, T1 capacity will reduce. This reflects the long term "ManTP" Airport Transformation Programme which will increase the capacity of T2, but ultimately close T1

[Suzeman]

That link also shows that the Airport will return to dual runway operation for the summer season.

Weekdays - Dual runway operations 0600-2059 (tel:0600-2059) local
Saturdays - Dual runway operations 0600-1559 (tel:0600-1559) local
Sundays - Dual runway operations 0600-0930 (tel:0600-0930) & 1300-2059 local..

[DP.]

I know you're talking about widebodies more generally, but specific to the A380, the only real game in town has been Emirates. Them moving over to T2 also means having their lounge in place, along with any other requirements they have. That wasn't planned as part of the first phase (presumably with the agreement of EK) and therefore it wouldn't have made sense to have such provision on Pier 1. I suspect that EK, and the likes of EY and QR, would have a preference to not operate out of Pier 1 anyway, given the walking distance - the planned Pier 3 being much closer to the main body of the terminal.

[roverman]

I was involved in the planning stages of MAN-TP prior to my retirement last year.. There was much consultation around the distribution of gates across the proposed 4 piers and the stand configurations to provide the greatest flexibility across a wide range of aircraft types and airline preferences. The designated A380 pier and the pier build sequence changed a few times as design development matured. With regard to the proivision of double bridges it was agreed with the airlines that the benefits of two-bridge boarding did not outweigh the limitations this placed on a flexible multi-choice apron for a mix of narrow and wide body types. The parked position of the extra airbridge constrains the number of centrelines you can fit on to any specific stand block. Furthermore, you really need two gate doors as well as two bridges to get the full benefit on boarding times - something which not only adds cost but complicates the design of the interior of the pier.. The exception is at A380-specific gates where there's a need to service the upper deck, that is where the double-airbridge and second gate door really benefit. Hence the decision to provide double bridges at A380 gates only, and on one pier only. The Pier C double bridges are a legacy dating back to the 1970s/80s.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

That's interesting, I know that at LHR T2 / T3/ T5 and at GLA, the A380 gates are on the centreline with narrow bodied B737/A320 stands on Left and Right lines. At LHR both L/R can be airbridge serviced independently with different doors used for boarding L/R. Not quite sure how two bridge boading is an impediment if it's common usage at other airports with narrow bodies? I suspect 555 at LGW is also flexible that way although I haven't been airside since it was rebuilt for the A380.

[roverman]

In planning the stand layout we of course studied what had been done at :LHR T5 and used consultants who had worked on that project, with a view to adopting proven good practice (aka copying!). One of the constraints at MAN-TP is that we were (are) building onto an existing apron which had been designed to work with a frontage at 90 degrees to the new one (old T2 western pier). This created a complex 3D challenge to resolve the levels between aircraft sill height, working right back to through the airbridge, gate door, and pier to the terminal building whilst complying with various regulatory requirements on gradients. The more usual case such as at LHR T5 is a coordinated blank sheet design with no pre-existing apron levels. At MAN this legacy translated into lateral constraints at the head of stand, and so in the interface between aircarft and terminal.

[rkenyon]

Emirates still haven't re-opened their lounge in T1, despite having 2xA380 per day (plus a B777 some days). Hopefully I'm wrong, but I think some of their outstation lounges may not re-open, as per EY.

[brian_dromey]

Really interesting post and gives a bit more speech to the conversation of “they did it at T5, MAG couldn’t be bothered”. More of this kind of post please!

There is one thing at MAN that really drives me mad. Its not the duty free parade or the gate areas. It is the constant shouting from MAG staff at Security and also Border Control queues. The culture seems to be shout at the passengers rather than talk, sometimes its about trays, hats, coats, belts, having passports open, where to queue, but its constant and very unpleasant. It is also unnecessary and gives the impression that jobsworths are on a power trip. Its really a marked contrast to other airports around the world where shouting is the exception rather than a KPI.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

It's stretching it to say the issues were insurmountable for the A380 gates, it's more of a cost benefit analysis.
GLA added infrastructure to a 1994 build pier.
MAN added infrastructure to a 1960s build pier.
LGW added the infrastructure to a 1988 build pier.

If they'd wanted to add an A380 gate, then down the end of the new Pier 1 would have been relatively straightforward, if not a little more expensive on a 2020 new build. But if the plan was to add them onto the next phase then it's all fair IMHO.

[roverman]

You've hit upon it. The plan was to include A380 gates as part of the next phase (opening 2022) at Pier 3, and latterly reviewed to be Pier 2. That's the point at which I bowed out. Of course since then we've had the world turned on its head by Covid, so who knows. We've also seen the end of the A380 programme which makes accommodating this unique aircraft type all the more marginal in a cost-benefit analysis.

[brian_dromey]

I don't think thats unreasonable to have 1 gate and to compromise the hundreds of Narrowbody, Regional Jets and Turboprops that operate at MAN for 3 daily A380s? With this kind of demand only one or two gates make sense and the current A380 user has their own lounge at T1, so I can see why it was not a priority. I can't quite see from the pictures online, can the A380 be boarded from M2L and U1L at the same time at MAN? It looks like the angles might not work, but that might be the photos I have seen. It might not be such a big issue, its all Economy on the lower deck, which I hadn't realised. Even in the two-class version Business is a the rear of the upper deck, so the big seats never have to glimpse the masses trudging through their cabin. It looks like EK have configured the aircraft to suit airport layouts, rather than a more conventional layout like SQ and BA chose.

Is there any thoughts at present on the T1/T3 situation? As I understand it T3 itself is closed, but some of the gate area are used for Domestic flights? In truth I do think the Check-In, Security and Concourse areas of T3 have seen better days and (were) quite short of space for the number of FR 737s that used it, but the gate areas are pretty acceptable.

[MANFAN]

I think the A380 at MAN is boarded/de-boarded via L1 on the lower deck and L2 on the upper deck (please correct me if necessary).

Yes, T3 is closed so no access to check in, security or immigration. However, Loganair, Eastern, Blue Islands and BA are using various T3 stands. On arrival passengers are directed to the T3 domestic arrivals baggage hall and exit T3 arrivals.
Some Ryanair arrivals & departures are used but the passengers are bussed to & from the aircraft from T1.

My personal opinion is that T3 check in areas are better than the cramped T1…but could do with a little spruce up.
Security is a nightmare like T1, once you have more than 2/3 Ryanair flights and only a few lanes open it’s chaotic! So the staffing levels need sorting out first to ensure adequate lanes are staffed at the peak times!
The immigration in T3 has to be the worst experience due to the small size for the number of flights & passengers it handles! I don’t know if there is an option to extend but something needs to be done urgently! Baggage reclaim is ok but again needs some TLC.
The gate areas are ok to be fair, decent enough seating at most gates and less cramped than most T1 gates!

When they finally reopen T3 it’ll probably ideal for Ryanair given their growing expansion and the fact most other airlines will be in T2 by then.

[Rutan16]

T3 should be reinstated as a domestic and CTA terminal, with the only international carriers being ONEWORLD end !

[OzzyOzBorn]

Domestic and CTA traffic alone would not come close to justifying the capacity represented by T3, even supplemented by Oneworld's very modest international throughput. And it is unlikely that affected carriers would welcome split-terminal operations either. Meanwhile, if Ryanair were to increase to 19 based units for S22 as envisaged, they would certainly require at least a significant proportion of T3 capacity. There would not be sufficient room for them in T1 based on 2019 levels of demand across all carriers. However, rumoured suggestions that MAG is contemplating T1/T3 as a single combined operation would offer a helpful solution.

T3 suffers the further disadvantage that it is poorly-located for domestic passengers needing to interline via other terminals. And those customers currently ending up outside the T3 main entrance face a substantial hike to T2 with no travellators available and no inter-terminal shuttle bus in operation. That is just too much. The sooner domestic traffic can be accommodated in T2 the better.

[brian_dromey]

Rutan16

why would this be? And what would FR and easyJet do with their flights to non-CTA destinations?
T3 did/does have some good lounge options, it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope. Given that domestic airlines and Ryanair didn’t need large numbers of check-in desks prior to COVID I had wondered if reducing the size of the check-in hall and putting security there would have been a solution. With the post-COVID paperwork I’m not sure thats a good idea. Check-In seems to be the rate limiting phase at the moment.

T3 would suit a self-contained Ryanair or easyJet operation quite well and is fairly close to the original vision of T3 as a Domestic + BA operation. This might sound insane, but if MAN do think of using T1 & T3 as one facility could the Security and Lounges in T3 be used as some sort of PremiAir wing option? It might work quite well with small numbers of passengers who pay for a quicker/easier option than the main T1. We know how much MAG loves to monetise any opportunity.

[Rutan16]

Re combining work be least worst scenario .
Its just a partition wall anyway.

Ozzy the presence of Ryanair IS the fundamental issue; too many peaks and troughs through at terminal designed (prior the the eastern extension) for a quite different purpose.

The core building infrastructure that is T3 (BA and originally T1a Domestic) is simply not of a size nor ergonomically designed with a four wave 19 aircraft 189 seat operation in mind.

As for split operation what would you be talking about here?

Towing aircraft from one pier to another happens thousands of times round the world

Indeed bussing happens right now at this very airport !

Oh and as many carriers sub contract ground handling what differences does it matter whether at 46 11, or 206 to the crew to be honest .

[Rutan16]

EZY/RYR in their many guises would continue to use T1 and/or T2 for EU/Magreb/Egypt/Israel and Red Sea operations

"it was more the security and concourse areas that are unable to cope" - THIS is the issue ! it can't be resolved within the core of the available infrastructure - T3 doesn't function !

[OzzyOzBorn]

[

Ryanair is indeed the issue. BUT ... they can't be discussed as an inconvenience / afterthought. They're on course to establish themselves as by far MAN's largest carrier by passenger throughput. It's not just the based fleet; they schedule a substantial number of visits by overseas-based aircraft as well, and these appear between the waves of MAN-based units. They usually fly full or close to full (C-19 excepted) - upto 195 seats per movement. As we emerge from C-19, Ryanair is the ONLY carrier which has returned to anything close to full strength at MAN. They're dominant, and it makes sense for them to push home a slot and terminal access land-grab whilst the going is good (from their perspective). Building up capacity in this dire market won't come without financial pain ... it is a big investment for the future, when additional grandfathered slots at attractive times will reap rewards for the long-term. Further to this, FlyBe 2.0 still holds the original FlyBe slot portfolio at MAN, along with access to scarce T3 capacity. Their slot horde is significantly larger than that of TUI, a major based carrier. If they genuinely plan to use all those slots, good luck to them. But does anyone really expect that? If not, Ryanair is the company best placed to benefit. And MAN would be very wise to accommodate them. Especially as Ryanair is simultaneously MAG's core partner at STN and a substantial passenger operation at EMA.

Your premise puts ONEWORLD first. They're a valued customer at MAN, but their ops are way, way behind Ryanair and EasyJet in importance. BA Mainline operates a Shuttle to LHR. A320 family aircraft around six times per day. Sun-Air operates BA-branded J328's on a niche programme to Scandinavia (currently C-19 suspended). BA Cityflyer holds historic slots for a weekend leisure programme in S22, but may not return in reality. American has exited MAN, and any return looks like a single daily short-season operation at best. Iberia Express is less than daily to MAD. Vueling is upto ten flights per week to BCN, and recently shunned MAN in choosing six British Isles airports to link with ORY. Finnair's normal (non-covid) schedule is upto two flights per day. That leaves Qatar, Cathay and RAM (suspended) who would probably have no wish to use T3 anyway. So ONEWORLD - whilst valued at MAN - is well down the list in volume terms. RYANAIR IS NUMBER ONE, providing multiples of the capacity ONEWORLD does. They need to be front and centre of MAN's thinking.

In T3 and T1, MAG must plan their operations first and foremost around the requirements of Ryanair and EasyJet (TUI and Jet2 are T2 operators). The relatively small Oneworld operation should not in any way be prioritised over them. Personally, I have long advocated merging T1 and T3 at the earliest opportunity. It is indeed just a dividing wall, and an integrated security and immigration system can't come soon enough. This would allow for the Ryanair based fleet to overspill on to some traditional T1 stands where needed, and the flexibility would be a positive for EasyJet too. This would also offer MAN the breathing room to allocate sufficient slots and gates to accommodate Ryanair's full proposed programme for S22, which is difficult to do whilst a significant proportion of T3 is set aside for FlyBe 2.0 ops which may never materialise.

In the longer term, I would advocate using combined T1/T3 as a dedicated LCC terminal with Ryanair and EasyJet the core users. Potentially Wizz too if erstwhile proposals for an initial 4-unit base ever come to fruition. Some of the walking distances to gates from legacy T1 security would be longer than we've been accustomed to, but no more so than at airports such as DUB, AMS and CDG. BA-branded ops would be far better served by relocating to T2 ASAP, and the smaller programmes of IBS, VLG and FIN could easily be moved over as well. QTR and CPA are in T2 already. RAM has not resumed MAN ops, but there is no logic in them being allocated T3 should they return. Aer Lingus Transatlantic schedules which codeshare with BA also operate from T2 already.

Briefly addressing your other objections, I have no issue with bussing where required (and never implied that). Terminal stands are preferred, but bussing is necessary to enable efficient use of resources at times. However, any notion you have that towing aircraft to and from T3 on a regular basis would be a workable long-term solution is absolutely wrong. This would frequently conflict with taxiway traffic flows, causing a major logistical headache and constant delays. An element of towing is inevitable (ideally during the night), but it must never be considered a go-to solution for regular daytime turnarounds. If in doubt, ask LHR.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

As always with Ozzyozborn's responses he has placed another very well thought out and argued (I'm not saying you are arguing), response.

[Rutan16]

I am far from devaluing Ryanair for MAG Group they are THE major client , what I am saying is that T3 at Manchester is simply unsuited to their, yes vast operations and what's more MAG and Ryanair know it ! For Ryanair the practical purpose of T3 is runway proximity; they couldn't care less about the terminal infrastructure to be honest.

RYR/EZY in their many guises are massive for MAG a magnitude more so than BA Regional alone ever were . However returning to T3 - BA/AY/IB/CX/QR/AT and possibly AA along with CTA flights and domestics just seem to work and yes a few RYR and EZY CTA/domestic would fill the gap.

EZY seem happy at T1 . Many more carriers will move to T2 and the planned expansion must happen and Ryanair can use T1 along with EZY.

BTW we aren't far apart or even reading a different hymn book .

I think we both agree that T3 infrastructure doesn't work today and cramming a quart into pint pot amplifies the terminals design and foot print constraints .

As for towing again happens at just about every airport inconvenient perhaps but so be it - I think your hint is MAN ground handlers might object to a bit of ACTUAL work , the same bodies that find diversions and adhoc operations rather more than a chore . Now that's not guys on the field ( far too lean) more rather middle management oh and under bidding on contracts.

As for Vueiling and Orly well I think the market to Paris is well covered with EZY/AF and even Ryanair into Beauvais right now.

Going on to FlyBe2 concentrating on BHX would make more economic sense rather the returning to the mirroring of twin hubs - That crippled them and BA Regional before them . Flying Scotland/Belfast and Southampton to Europe via both Manchester and Birmingham just didn't work !
Choose one, consolidate and if possible dominate as a boutique carrier .

[OzzyOzBorn]

I concur with many of your points, but for me the optimal solution is to operate T1/T3 as a single integrated unit, rather than jumping through hoops to force T3 to work in it's present form. I suspect that trying to juggle carriers as you suggest would really annoy Cathay Pacific and Qatar Airways, which whilst being Oneworld members have negligible interline business with BA at MAN. Iberia, Finnair and RAM have little reason to be alongside the Shuttle either. MAN doesn't function as a hub for Oneworld carriers. They wouldn't shun interline business, but it simply doesn't tend to connect over MAN in any volume for this alliance. On the other side of the equation, I suspect that Ryanair would be absolutely livid if told they were being shifted out of a reopened T3 against their will. Let me guess: a significant number of based units would be on their way to new homes PDQ. Ryanair don't mess about when an airport operator hacks them off. They see themselves as the primary T3 incumbent - they love it there - and if evicted to accommodate a relatively small competing operation at MAN, one would certainly expect them to kick off bigtime. And under the circumstances you propose, I wouldn't blame them. Best not prod that particular hornets' nest!

Other points: the towing issue is more a problem in terms of aircraft under tow going against the flow of taxying traffic. It's a pain in the proverbials and will be held out of the way with active flights given priority. That implies recurring knock-on delays.

Re Paris: FlyBe was a big player on MAN-CDG. Around four flights per day IIRC, using their larger E175/E195 equipment. They're gone. Air France has increased to a basic 3x daily schedule; EasyJet is active on the route too. But ORY is attractive in it's own right, offering great domestic connections to Regional France. And ORY is also favoured by many headed for southern districts of Paris itself, in the way that LGW is to Sussex etc. I would expect a daily service to do well (C-19 restrictions excepted).

I do think that there is a role for FlyBe 2.0 at MAN, but not a full replication of the legacy network. MAN wasn't their problem. Their Embraer leases were crippling. Their operations in Scandinavia didn't work out. They spread themselves too thin around several niche bases. But going back to basics could work for them. There is a vacancy for 'business day' morning and evening services to key regional cities well-suited to Q400 ops. Both Eastern and Blue Islands have not yet committed to double daily on the routes they have taken. Their reasoning is understandable, but it leaves the door open to a less risk-averse challenger. And a freshly-funded debt-free FlyBe 2.0 could be that. Where FlyBe 2.0 could come unstuck is that their horde of attractive peak-time slots at MAN will be very much in demand if forfeited under 'use it or lose it' rules once they're fully re-instated. Once Ryanair, EasyJet, Jet2 etc. have them, they won't be easily relinquished. So FlyBe 2.0 have a big decision to make re ops at MAN, and they can't dawdle too long.

EDIT: Just an additional thought. Perhaps FlyBe 2.0's owners might have designs on trying to sell off their MAN slots. Jet2 paid a handsome sum for those of the former Thomas Cook operation, though that feels like a world away from the economic environment we know today. I felt really sorry for Jet2 as covid engulfed life as we know it so soon after they won the auction for those slots. But, whilst slot values may be priced very differently post-covid, peak time slots at MAN are far from worthless. Perhaps some or all of them might change hands if the right offer comes along.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Where are we getting the notion that Ryanair love being in T3? It has no more than 12 B737 sized contact stands and is shared with BA amongst others. The taxi difference between T1 and T3 is negligible, whereas T1 has way more B737 sized stands. The CX in T3 with a fleet of 189 seaters is sub par for all all concerned in infrastructure built for mainly sub-100 seat aircraft. In BAU, how much bussing do Ryanair do? Stand 57-59 are bussed? Or is it the case that post flybe, it's effectively "theirs" in which case the impact on other airlines is neglible? (looking at you BA GOLD and Silver card holders :) )
I agree on the point about Oneworld connections except there did seem to be quite a few when I used to fly MAN-LHR, that's why the biometrics were extended to T3! Not a connection I ever fancied but it did happen often enough to employ people to police it. They used to sell LHR-MAN-ORD on AA as well as LHR-MAN-HEL on AY.

BTW there's surely quite a growing list of airlines who have been based in all 3 terminals by now, Ryanair being one of them.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Ryanair is on record as confirming their keenness on T3 due to the short taxi times. According to some reports, when discussions were ventured with Ryanair a couple of years ago to accommodate some of their overflow business in T1 (taking account of plans for additional based units), they refused the offer. They stuck with the maximum that could be accommodated in T3, and the proposed additional units were instead allocated to other airports. T3 does present some deficiencies from a passenger perspective. But Ryanair really do love the place.

Knock through that partition to allow T1/T3 to operate as a single integrated terminal airside and that problem goes away. Get it done, MAG! You know it makes sense.

[Rutan16]

Agreed the facilities desperately need recombining that IS the only effective and indeed relatively economic solution. I believe its was only ever done to placate border authorities when airside of T1 moved north !

[Dorking]

I can see why Ryanair are keen to keep T3..on our recent departure, with Jet2, from the far side of the T2 extension to the start of the active runway was 20 mins taxi time according to the Captain...
that's the sort of thing that would keep O'Leary awake at night😁

[Rutan16]

I certainly would also use an Orly service were it available to get to Nantes (to see my daughter) - The domestic connections within L'Ouest ( T1 and T2) Les connexions sont exceptionnelles! Except for price levels !
The current Ryanair offerings into Nantes certainly aren't a patch on what Flybe were offering !

That said COViD restrictions mean the current Paris - Nantes AF flights all operate from CDG.

[airhumberside]

I don't think ORY-Nantes will be returning due to the French domestic flight restrictions - it's under 2hr30 from Paris to Nantes by rail

[Rutan16]

The work round for AF is primarily connections and those do mean CDG sure enough.

Time wise its about the same from Montparnasse to Nantes on a TGV as it is from Manchester - Euston, however more than a hour longer on cheaper classic TER services.
Its about at that 2.30 limit point on TGV services almost four hours on some TER services
Its a sight cheaper per mile than Avanti especially if you buy InOui !

If I use the train and I have from London I'll change at Lille to be honest

Sorry we have diverged a little

[brian_dromey]

Seems quite the can of worms has been opened on the T1/T3 future. I don’t think Ryanair, easyJet or even BA give much of a care to the overall passenger experience. They all operate from some fairly basic and/or unpleasant facilities across their network. The FR portacbins at Liverpool spring to mind. What Ryanair want is low costs, quick turnarounds and short taxy times. T3 offers them that. With AF BA and KL unlikely to return to T3 that does give a bit more space for based units, even if a reincarnated flyBe were to come back in their previous size. Which is unlikely overnight for Summer 2022?

From what I gather T1/T3 are already operating as one, the T3 gates being used as necessary, accessed by the corridor to/from the old bmi lounges, I think? I dont think there are any open facilities in T3 departures though.

[commit aviation]

Maybe they will finally decide to bulldoze T1 in a few years and build something that will tie the whole lot together a bit better.
There can't be that much life left on the old place now surely?

[eggc]

Draw a line along the line of the new T2 and it goes perfectly all the way through T1 and right to the other end of T3. IMO that's how it will end up, one huge long terminal with the odd pier poking out with scope for more in the future.

[MANFAN]

Where is the partition wall between both terminals that can be “easily knocked through”?
I am all for 1 single integrated terminal, but the T1 security and immigration halls can’t cope with simultaneous EasyJet & Ryanair departures and arrivals, especially if most flights are full!
Is there anyway these halls can be extended?
Be interesting to see what happens to all that space where the current T3 check in areas and security hall are…if this comes off of course! (Hopefully).

[Rutan16]

You know they are structually joined and before the airside move when landslide move you could walk between the two (and get nice hotdog on the ground floor of T1a). They built a wall and it really is little more than a partition, indeed there are fire doors still there through it nicely concealed with some cladding as well.
Seriously it would cost no more than a few hundred thousand tops to remove , remodel and restore; wouldn't even need much steelwork.;

[Rutan16]

You know they are structually joined and before the airside move when land move you could walk between the two (and get nice hotdog on the ground floor of T1a). They built a wall and it really is little more than a partition, indeed there are fire doors still there through it nicely concealed with some cladding as well.
Seriously it would cost no more than a few hundred thousand tops to remove , remodel and restore; wouldn't even need much steelwork..

There a surprising number of the original T1 structures simply hidden behind facades !

[MANFAN]

Yes, I vaguely remember a cafe with a pub (I think) in T1 landside with a view looking out over the apron between pier’s A & B. The same view as from the premium Lounges…so is this the same area? I’m struggling to understand which actual wall is the partition?

[Rutan16]

Pretty much

[brian_dromey]

The T3 security hall is in part of the link between T1 and T3, I think. The passenger flow of that part of the terminal is especially bad but there’s nowhere else for a T3 security hall.

In theory would the older desks around the Cafe Nero be enough for Ryanair and could the security area be relocated to the newer check-in area?

I think the current link between T1 and T3 is at ramp level. I’m not quite sure how to get there from T1, but I think some gates have been renumbered?

[MANFAN]

Where is the cafe Nero?

During the lockdown in January this year my BA flight was departing from gate 1 (now gate 35), and we accessed T3 from T1 through a corridor next to the premium lounges. Not the most ideal way to access T3 for the future…

[The96er]

That access route to the T3 gates is still in use. Lots of passengers arriving for BA flights stressed and exhausted. Just adds to the wonderful experience after the gauntlet of Security. Bring back T3 security ASAP as far as I’m concerned.

[HOVIS]

That was one of the 6 design options I saw on paper. It is the airline's preferred option but the temult would be too much. Or would have been pre covid.
Also, there's a massive amount of electrical and comms network cables that go through T1. That would all need re-routing. Big job.

[ian_h1]

eggc

Funnily enough I was playing paint the other night and had the same thought.

Option A would be a reasonably cost efficient short term solution with Option B being the longer term goal and able to be delivered in stages.....

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x285/a_bf9c68b07391c9928ca92b2c26ae7e5647e68b28.jpg
A
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/512x285/b_99300b09146e5408fee50cfe764477edf3e4563e.jpg
B

[Seljuk22]

Not sure if this was published here before:
Last week, easyJet confirmed it would be expanding its UK fleet with three more aircraft across its Bristol and Manchester bases for the summer 2022 season. The Manchester base will be larger than ever with 20 aircraft based there connecting the North-West to key cities and holidays destinations across Europe.
https://mediacentre.easyjet.com/story/15303/easyjet-recruitment-drive-underway-for-1500-cabin-crew-for-summer-2022-ramp-up

[DP.]

I highly doubt that QR and CX would have much interest in moving to T3 when they currently operate out of a brand new T2.

[Rutan16]

If BA could be persuaded to move to pleb south terminal at Gatwick (palms adequately greased) I suggest with the right help CX and QR won't object imho

[easyflyer83]

The type of airline is not necessarily indicative of what the airline actually requires, demands or expects. As such, CX and QR would not likely decline a terminal move because T2 is new.

By the same token, and at the other end of the spectrum, a LCC won’t be left with the cr*ppy end of the stick because of the model it operates and the perceived needs of a passenger flying an LCC.

[AircraftOperations]

Bear in mind, that with very different retail experiences in T2 and T3, MAG may prefer certain airlines' passengers to be able to access the better facilities to maximise retail income.

[easyflyer83]

MAG’s overarching aim will likely be to evenly spread capacity than to neatly place alliances and business models in neat boxes. That’s not to say there aren’t benefits in, for example, placing oneworld carriers together but there are many other, more pressing, priorities.

As for passenger spend, with no figures to support my belief, it will be the bucket and spaders who spend the most at MAN, particularly given the mid-range retail offering. Many of those will be travelling on a LCC to somewhere like ALC or ZTH whilst next door there will be a company aircraft boarding for GVA or NCE, each with a number of Coutts card holders onboard.

My point being, at MAN at least, it’s also very difficult to neatly place passengers in neat little boxers. There are just so many grey areas.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

I think Qatar might refuse, they're really, really not going to be keen to be jammed into a Ryanair dominated T3, and that's no slight on FR who I have flown happily many times. T3 has major pain points in boarding, especially around Gate 44, it was a cul de sac of mayhem some days when American used to board from 44 or 48. You're not going to want a Qatar B77W or a Cathay A350 in that mix. The customer experience is overwhelmingly loco and even BA don't belong there anymore.
When BA moved to LGW South, there was a financial inducement, pier one was brand new, the satellite is pretty spacious and they got a new lounge and dedicated large checkin area, and plane to train was way quicker. South lost easyJet and the loco vibe with only a few Ryanair, Vueling and Norwegain remaining. At MAN T3 you'd have a bussling FR dominated loco terminal with some Oneworld squatters IMHO.

[easyflyer83]

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t see any widebody op’s in T3 ever again, even if AA were to return, and as I said I don’t believe you can keep everything in a neat and tidy box when it comes to alliances and operating models.

My main point however was that you can’t really differentiate Terminal allocation on passenger spend either, at least in MAN, the misconception being that LCC pax spend less. Having worked for both a network carrier and LCC it very much depends on destination and it’s your leisure traveller that spends the most. At MAN, leisure is still the dominant demographic. That is partly why MAN has so many based aircraft, many of which are from LCC’s. Imagine trying to get all those away on a morning if they are all nicely ‘sectorised’.

[brian_dromey]

Between them FR and easyJet will have ~40 aircraft next summer. Plus the inbound flights from other bases. Jet2 and TUI must be a similar size between them at T2.

Clearly easyJet, Ryanair, Jet2 and TUI will dominate MAN’s allocations. EK are important because the A380 has its own restrictions. The VS, CX, BA, EI operate a fraction of the flights on standard wide-bodies, while they might be good for the ego, the reality is that it’s easyJets and Ryanair’s that keep the passenger throughput high.

If FR are happy at T3 and easyJet at T1 then nothing will change, other than more ‘network’ airlines moving to T2. The VS lounge and rumoured BA/oneworld facilities increase the likelihood. I think we all acknowledge T3 isn’t a great passenger experience and that COVID has hit the groups appetite for further redevelopment right now. I think most of the discussion is around how it can be improved in the short term.

[MANFAN]

An improvement in the T3 passenger experience is required if passengers are to make it through security in the target time of 15 mins for the KPI’s!
But in reality it’s a bloody nightmare, not to mention the small immigration area!
Security being relocated to the current T3 check in areas would be better but I can see this happening.
Is there anyway to merge T1/T3 so security and immigration closer together to create bigger areas?
I can’t see the current T1 security or immigration coping next summer season with all those multiple EZY & FR flights!

[Mr A Tis]

Not sure how you can improve T3 without major surgery. As soon as, I think its Gate 141 unloads, the whole access to the T3 concourse is closed off, been stuck there many a time either trying to get into the concourse of trying to go back having been allocated gate 18 or those along there. The best you could get is maybe RYR & EZY take over T3 completely as their own terminal. It would require less ticketing desks, less check in desks-more self service check in. Check in area B in T1 given over to Loganair, Eastern, Blue Island, Are Lingus CTA flights & BA, with their own B security area open to time with their departures, to make short/domestic flights more viable time wise.

On another note, in T2 arrivals, I see that M & S is now closed down already & they were busy packing everything up today.
The new T2 check area looks rather spacious - but that maybe because there is zero seating anywhere, apart from mobility assistance area. The new check in area toilets also are a bit sparse, the Gents has one urinal & two cubicles, I guess you need to cross your legs until through security-however long that may take. When I went through, only one lane was open that doubled up as fast track too.

[easyflyer83]

If T3 is so bad and so cramped, why would MAG put both its biggest carriers into the same terminal? One or the other absolutely but both? Why? Absolute carnage.

It’s all a moot point as, from what I know, everything is up in the air post covid. Post covid, EasyJet were meant to move to T2 in 2022, whether that transpires to be the case, who knows. It will be a case of how the cards fall.

[brian_dromey]

As I was saying in my post I don’t think some posters recognise who butters the bread at MAN. With 40 aircraft between them at MAN it’s easyJet and Ryanair. Jet2 and TUI too. MAG makes money by selling parking, lattes and duty-free. The volumes put through the place by the above 4 pale in comparison to the long haul routes.

The idea that easyJet and Ryanair would both be in T3 is fanciful. How would the place cope with 40 departures in the first wave? No hope!

[Rutan16]

Secure Airside coaching and transfers would solve that problem . Heathrow have been doing this for decades !

[Mr A Tis]

Between 0500 & 0900 today (1st wave) there were 25 departures between EZY & RYR, not 40. Pre C19 T3 was handling, badly admittedly, more than 25 departures in 4 hours.

[SWBKCB]

at the quietest time of the year. What will the position be next summer?

[chaps1954]

I would suggest very different, for starters 2 runways and they have 4 months to get it sorted terminal wise. But in reality what will things be like with this strain of Covid

[MANFOD]

Based on the initial slot applications for S22 at MAN, it's been reported that easyjet would have 20 based aircraft and Ryanair 19. So 39 which is pretty close to 40. The 2 extra based a/c for easyjet has been announced. Whether Ryanair intend to base all 7 additional a/c to make the 19 is another matter, and a (small) percentage of the slots so far allocated (which is in the public domain) are more than 30 minutes outside the times requested. A couple of years or so ago, slot applications indicated that Ryanair wanted to put extra a/c (5?) into MAN at a time when flybe had a busy operation in T3 as well as some legacy carriers such as BA & AA. The full story is probably not known but the outcome was that MAN couldn't accommodate those additional units or Ryanair decided the slot times were not acceptable.

In this climate, MAN can't afford to turn away business and which could otherwise go to competitor airports, so it's to be hoped the airport pull out all the stops to accommodate whatever growth Ryanair plan. The relatively high number of flights the airline operates into MAN with non-based a/c is very welcome, but 3 or 4 of those are required each day to make up for 1 based unit.

[brian_dromey]

Rutan16

But what’s the logic of putting all easyJet and Ryanair passengers through T3 to bus them to T1 or midfield stands? As one poster mentioned LCC passengers tend to spend time and money at the airport. LCCs are the major demographic at most airports, their operations and passengers aren’t a flash in the pan inconvenience for BA, Singapore airlines or airport operators. They are the major source of passengers and ancillary revenue.
MAG aren’t going to shoehorn a planned 39/40 737 (tel:39/40 737)/A320 operation for summer 2022 into T3 to suit some nostalgic vision of an industry that existed in the 90/00s when they thought easyJet would be a footnote in history and Ryanair served Dublin in the shadow of Aer Lingus.

[DP.]

MANFAN

Unlikely. T1 and T3 security areas, aside from not really being that close to each other, are on different floors. If I recall correctly, the other side of the wall from T3 security is the airline lounges so you're talking pretty major upheaval to get anything workable. You also have to consider getting passengers all the way back there in the first place. It sounds like it'd be a significant capital investment that MAG are unlikely to want to commit to considering that T1 didn't feature in their long-term plans, pre-pandemic at least.

[DP.]

easyflyer83

That in itself is true, but if the proposed alternative was the existing T3, I'd suggest that would make them far more likely to decline it.

[easyflyer83]

Quite possibly but my comment was in the context of those who seem to want to shoe horn the airports two biggest customers into one terminal simply based on their operating model whilst suggesting that certain other carriers wouldn’t stand for it….. when in reality, those airlines fly into lots of :mad: hole airports right across the Globe.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I don't want to see operators 'shoehorned' into T3. I do want to see the dividing screen removed to allow the T1/T3 campus function as a single integrated unit again. It is all one building really, and opening it up enables the flexibility which MAN now desperately needs.

The main issue obstructing this is the way MAN has traditionally segregated domestic passengers from international. But that has been adapted for covid. We've seen that it can be done. And once domestic can be flowed through T2, the problem is fully resolved.

[Rutan16]

brian_dromey

You miss quoted me I said Ryan and Easy should be accommodated within T1/T2 and T3 returned to its roll as a primarily domestic and Oneworld hub it was designed for .
T3 is dysfunctional by design and footprint .
Still its just an opinion

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

OzzyOzBorn

Didn't that tradition go away years ago when the biometrics nonsense was introduced at T3 for the benefit of the handful of connecting passengers routing xyz-MAN-abc?

[easyflyer83]

OzzyOzBorn

Which, incidentally, by all accounts is the sticking point for easy’s move to T2.

[Rutan16]

From a security perspective fundamentally disagree with the mixing of domestic and international travellers airside its simply poor and especially in view of the government policy of segregation of arrival and departures post security.

The only reason certain airport operators like it is for retail opportunities .

[cumbrianboy]

That's a curious statement. When all passengers pass through the same security process and require photo ID for travel, how exactly is this a security issue?

Regarding T2 as a domestic or CTA terminal, at the moment there are no arrival routes (as I understand it) for domestic or CTA passengers.

[Una Due Tfc]

I read on another site that the inaugural EIUK MAN-JFK flight will be operated by the spare A330 tomorrow as there has been a slight paperwork delay in getting the A321LR over there. The LR will now position over Thursday to commence operations on Friday. Same source said EI are happy with the forward bookings on the JFK route.

[Mr Mac]

Anybody know when EK lounges are due to re open ?

[rkenyon]

I've heard 13th December, which is one day too late for us!

[Mr Mac]

rkenyon
Thanks for the information, sorry you will not be able to use it on this trip, though they are open in DXB at least.

[Gordon_uk3]

I wondered if anyone knew the current situation with the old Air Livery and Thomas cook Hangars. Are there any plans for someone to use them again?

Thanks

[HOVIS]

Latest scuttlebut is that FEAM have the ex TC hangar, THG still have plans for the old BA shed, but what they are is anyone's guess as there are other rumours that they are in financial trouble.

[The96er]

Latest scuttlebut is that FEAM have the ex TC hangar, THG still have plans for the old BA shed, but what they are is anyone's guess as there are other rumours that they are in financial trouble.

Forgive me if already answered, but who are 'FEAM' ?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

A quick Google search finds - FEAM Aero on Cincinnati who do line maintenance. I had also heard a rumour with regards to Fosun (Chinese company that owns Condor).

[HOVIS]

https://feam.aero/company-news/feam-maintenance-engineering-expands-into-the-united-kingdom-and-europe/

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

I believe that FEAM are out of the equation.

[Navpi]

I sincerely hope FEAM are still involved although i was told by an employee who works at Amazon next door, that the Hut Group actually now fully own both hangars, Air Livery and Thomas Cook.

This would tie in with a proposal 12 months back that THG would set up their own freight operation with two chartered 747s and fly their own products in from the Far East, but presumably this fell foul of Covid, and the persuasive skills of MAG not to entertain pure cargo flights although i assume if it's an in house operation THG would set everything up themselves, assuming they were then allowed apron space ?

Was there not another project by MAG to turn Air Livery into high end covered premium car parking or did that pre date THG ?

There have also been rumours of a major engineering company creating hundreds of good quality engineering positions and apprenticeships, that has also come to nought.

Did they go elsewhere ?

Either way if indeed THG do own the hangers it is an extensive piece of infastructure which is sat empty?
Could there not be a meeting of minds given Manchester is one of the few major airports in Europe with no hanger or major engineering facility re engine swaps etc ?

[DomyDom]

Ryanair announce Manchester - Genoa twice weekly (Wed/Sun) from April 2022 🙂
https://corporate.ryanair.com/news/ryanair-launches-new-route-from-manchester-to-genoa-for-s22/?market=en

[rkenyon]

rkenyon
Thanks for the information, sorry you will not be able to use it on this trip, though they are open in DXB at least.

Closed again after opening for only a few days :(

[SWBKCB]

Manchester Airport said the longest security queue was just over an hour and a half - and have now apologised to travellers affected 'for any inconvenience'. They said they faced a higher number of passengers than expected, and a higher-than-usual rate of staff absence on the day.


The airport last night responded to several complaints on Twitter with the same message. The tweet from Manchester Airport said: “We are aware security queues were longer than we would have hoped at times today and apologise for any inconvenience caused. We are doing all we can to minimise delays and thank customers for their understanding.”

MEN - 'Chaos' at Manchester Airport as travellers miss flights due to long queues (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/carnage-manchester-airport-travellers-miss-22504388)

[VickersVicount]

not sure why any passenger should be surprised by this and my sympathy is limited. The place is falling apart around us yet people moaning on their way to Tanzarote.

[eye2eye5]

Neither can I understand why the airport should be surprised by the passenger numbers. Don’t they look at the scheduled flights or talk to their airlines? Rank bad management.

[lfc84]

" a higher number of passengers than expected"

That's an insult to each and every one of those passengers who have been affected

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

No excuses. There's nothing like shooting yourself in the foot.

[horatio_b]

Not been through Manchester for years, but I seem to remember that you have to scan a boarding card at the main entry before security to gain access. Surely details of all the valid boarding cards are held on the airport system. So the airport ought to know exactly how many passengers to expect.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

But at that stage it is too late to up the staffing level.

The airport should have approximate figures by knowing the number of flights - flights x number of seats x probably load factor = passengers.

[eye2eye5]

Absolutely! The number of passengers should not be a surprise.

I do wonder who owns the passenger experience at MAN as we see this and regular references to unpleasant staff at security, together with travellators out of service…..

[HKGBOY]

Given the state of the travel industry at the moment you would like to think Manchester Airport valued its customers & offered them the best ever passenger experience.
what’s happening now is nothing new for MAN , the security has always been under resourced even pre Covid.
Even when I passed through the new T2 departures, they managed to have only one measly security lane open- which also doubled as fast track.
Get a grip MAN or people given a choice, will never come back here,

[OzzyOzBorn]

Sadly, the pressure in the security queues is about to ease. Germany has just announced that they are joining France and Israel in banning leisure travel from the UK. Netherlands is entering a strict lockdown ... fancy heading into that for Christmas? Portugal talking travel bans as well. No doubt more bad news incoming from our continental neighbours very soon.

[sportzbar]

From what I've heard on the ground a couple of things have actually happened.

The first being that the airport did know how many passengers they were expecting at the time but a large number of staff are now isolating due to a Covid outbreak, meaning that even with the best will in the world there will only be a finate number of staff available to work, which when your available workforce is decimated by 40% then any industry will suffer.

On top of this a large number of passengers (not confirmed, just opinion from someone on the ground), are now arriving 1-1.5 hours before departure and suddenly being caught out.

I guess it doesn't help when flight departures are bunched together in waves but I believe that passengers are advised to arrive earlier than they normally would for exactly this reason. I know the several times I've flown in the past year I've arrived 3 hours early, a couple of times being caught up in big queues but also on occasion flying through.....

[eye2eye5]

That would be a fair call, Sportzbar, if not for the airport tweet stating that staff absences were not Covid related. Perhaps there is some mistaken reluctance to admit that Covid is affecting staff numbers. It would be surprising, however, it passenger behaviour has suddenly changed to allow less time to pass through the terminal just when airlines are advising them to allow more time.

[sportzbar]

I wouldn't believe tweets put out by companies at the moment. Personally Im more inclined to believe my family member working on the frontline dealing with this very issue who himself has just come back from a 10 day period of isolation.

Social media is a great way of getting information to your customers and other media outlets very quickly but as in this case and indeed in the rail industry where I work, a common theme is the wrong information being "tweeted", mainly because the person who is operating the account at that time is only working with the information provided and not with the actual facts....

[TURIN]

Biman now arriving on Christmas Day and departing Boxing Day 20:00hr. Which is nice for all concerned. :ugh:

[lfc84]

Biman now arriving on Christmas Day and departing Boxing Day 20:00hr. Which is nice for all concerned. :ugh:
Passengers advised to get in the queue now

[Mr A Tis]

From what I've heard on the ground a couple of things have actually happened.

The first being that the airport did know how many passengers they were expecting at the time but a large number of staff are now isolating due to a Covid outbreak, meaning that even with the best will in the world there will only be a finate number of staff available to work, which when your available workforce is decimated by 40% then any industry will suffer.

On top of this a large number of passengers (not confirmed, just opinion from someone on the ground), are now arriving 1-1.5 hours before departure and suddenly being caught out.

I guess it doesn't help when flight departures are bunched together in waves but I believe that passengers are advised to arrive earlier than they normally would for exactly this reason. I know the several times I've flown in the past year I've arrived 3 hours early, a couple of times being caught up in big queues but also on occasion flying through.....
Unfortunately, if you're flying with the likes of Loganair, Blue Island or Eastern the check in would not open until 2 hours before, so there is no point in arriving earlier. Not to mention, if you are doing a 30 minute hop to the Isle of Man - do you really want to arrive 3 hours before? On that basis it would be quicker to drive to Liverpool & fly from there.

[sportzbar]

Unfortunately, if you're flying with the likes of Loganair, Blue Island or Eastern the check in would not open until 2 hours before, so there is no point in arriving earlier. Not to mention, if you are doing a 30 minute hop to the Isle of Man - do you really want to arrive 3 hours before? On that basis it would be quicker to drive to Liverpool & fly from there.

But the problem isn't the people being told to check-in two hours before . It's the people who are being advised (by their airline) to check in three hours before. It was the likes of passengers flying with Jet2, TUI etc that were causing problems by arriving 1.5-2 hours before departure, therefore ignoring the advice of the carrier.

Of course this has all been exacerbated by MAG management themselves laying off 100s of experienced security staff and then not bringing them back. On top of this (despite the denials to the press) they are suffering staff shortages due to Covid isolation rules.

Its a perfect storm of people disregarding the advice given by their airline (and then wanting to blame anyone else but themselves) and inept management decisions all whipped up to create a story that gets "clicks" and sells newsprint....

[Navpi]

Well whisper it but i do have some good news. Manchester has finally joined the cargo revenue and employment opportunity that every other airport seems to be milking.

747F due 23rd, and apparently the first of 5.

[Curious Pax]

Well whisper it but i do have some good news. Manchester has finally joined the cargo revenue and employment opportunity that every other airport seems to be milking.

747F due 23rd, and apparently the first of 5.

You may want to have your blood pressure tablets handy if you’re talking about the Longtail flights. It emerged last week that they are now going to Bournemouth as the handling agent (Swissport I think) who had signed up for them changed their mind.

Cue much gnashing and wailing, but if they can’t get a handler what can the airport do in the current climate? Staff shortages and penalty clauses with existing customers won’t fill many handling agents with enthusiasm for ad hoc work.

[The96er]

You may want to have your blood pressure tablets handy if you’re talking about the Longtail flights. It emerged last week that they are now going to Bournemouth as the handling agent (Swissport I think) who had signed up for them changed their mind.

Cue much gnashing and wailing, but if they can’t get a handler what can the airport do in the current climate? Staff shortages and penalty clauses with existing customers won’t fill many handling agents with enthusiasm for ad hoc work.

All of the handling agents are under extreme staffing pressures at the moment and not just at MAN. Swissport are in a very dire situation at the moment and are causing severe knock-on effects that are effecting the whole airport. The last thing they need is the complexity of handling ad-hoc freighter flights.

[Navpi]

Bournemouth ?

I'd be interested to know how the logistics work down there.

Given there can be 12 hours between movements where do Bournemouth pull the staff from. They can't be hanging around being paid waiting for the odd 747 to drop in, they barely get more than 3 moves a day and sometimes there can be 10 hours between movements.

How many staff are required and where on earth would they be drawn from ?

[SWBKCB]

It'll be the guys bulk loading the European A.340-600's on a daily basis.

[MARKEYD]

Bournemouth do there own handling now for everything and not reliant on Swissport like other UK airports
Obviously there terms and conditions make them very flexible to do all of this

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Bournemouth ?

I'd be interested to know how the logistics work down there.

Given there can be 12 hours between movements where do Bournemouth pull the staff from. They can't be hanging around being paid waiting for the odd 747 to drop in, they barely get more than 3 moves a day and sometimes there can be 10 hours between movements.

How many staff are required and where on earth would they be drawn from ?
Local staff, zero hours?
There's a based fleet of A340-600 been doing preighter work for about 18 months now on routes to China and such.

[Navpi]

Indeed but the flights to BOU are to say the least, adhoc with hours and sometimes even days between movements.

But the labour to service said freight seems to miraculously appear when needed, Bournemouth it seems can produce rabbits from a hat when so required !

Whilst I'm absolutely appreciative of the comments made re staff problems at Manchester, I'm slightly perplexed that an airport in Dorset which is perhaps more famous for it's propensity of care homes and one time resident Max Bygraves, is able to summon up assets albeit on zero hours contracts at rapid notice, whilst Manchester, at the beating heart of the industrial North and the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, with access to a regional talent pool perhaps 50x greater than Bournemouth appears moribund.

I'll be honest given the dire straits of the industry I would see this as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.

I would take a contrary view and say MAN should grasp every opportunity and every lifeline it can possibly get given the absolute dire financial circumstances we find ourselves in.

Another question, would our incumbent CEO Ms Smart even be aware of this development or is this strictly a negotiation between handler and airline. Are we suggesting that MAG MAN has effectively been bypassed and is totally unaware of this approach with no right of redress?

On that basis the fortunes of the airport are effectively governed by the effectivness of the handler. Is that not the case of the tale wagging a very big dog ?

[Mr A Tis]

Indeed but the flights to BOU are to say the least, adhoc with hours and sometimes even days between movements.

But the labour to service said freight seems to miraculously appear when needed, Bournemouth it seems can produce rabbits from a hat when so required !

Whilst I'm absolutely appreciative of the comments made re staff problems at Manchester, I'm slightly perplexed that an airport in Dorset which is perhaps more famous for it's propensity of care homes and one time resident Max Bygraves, is able to summon up assets albeit on zero hours contracts at rapid notice, whilst Manchester, at the beating heart of the industrial North and the epicentre of the Northern supply chain, with access to a regional talent pool perhaps 50x greater than Bournemouth appears moribund.

I'll be honest given the dire straits of the industry I would see this as an opportunity rather than a hindrance.

I would take a contrary view and say MAN should grasp every opportunity and every lifeline it can possibly get given the absolute dire financial circumstances we find ourselves in.

Another question, would our incumbent CEO Ms Smart even be aware of this development or is this strictly a negotiation between handler and airline. Are we suggesting that MAG MAN has effectively been bypassed and is totally unaware of this approach with no right of redress?

On that basis the fortunes of the airport are effectively governed by the effectivness of the handler. Is that not the case of the tale wagging a very big dog ?

The BOH operation isn't really adhoc, there is a daily service to New York & a daily service to China using the A340s that are bulk un/loaded. So, a pretty firm schedule, along with other adhoc A340 cargo flights.
In addition there is a a based TUI B738 & regular2-3 Ryanair services a day.
MAN is struggling to handle the reduced passenger loads let alone add in any kind of cargo operation.

[MANFOD]

I would take a contrary view and say MAN should grasp every opportunity and every lifeline it can possibly get given the absolute dire financial circumstances we find ourselves in.
Another question, would our incumbent CEO Ms Smart even be aware of this development or is this strictly a negotiation between handler and airline. Are we suggesting that MAG MAN has effectively been bypassed and is totally unaware of this approach with no right of redress?
On that basis the fortunes of the airport are effectively governed by the effectivness of the handler. Is that not the case of the tale wagging a very big dog ?

That's an interesting question regarding the relationships between Airlines, Handling Agents and the Airport.
The Airport's Business Development people will be trying to attract new business from airlines, perhaps with incentives where permitted, as well as maintaining relationships with existing airlines. But on a day to day basis when flights are operating, it's the Handling Agent providing the service to the Airlines. As an outsider, I assume from the Airport's standpoint that the Handling Agent is a tenant under which certain standard of performance are required but I'm sure others will be more knowledgeable on this. It's been said in the past that airlines are the customers of the handling agents and the airport's customers are the passengers. Is that a bit too simplistic perhaps?

For ad hoc flights like the freighters mentioned, wouldn't the airline's initial contact be with the Airport and also with ACL? The choice of Handling Agent I imagine may be dependent on whether there is a contract with a particular Agent at other Airports.

Questions have arisen in the past on the old chestnut of when MAN has turned diversions away. Sometimes it has apparently been the Airport itself because of a lack of parking space for example. At other times, it appears to have been the Handling Agents who've refused extra traffic allegedly because of a lack of staff or work load with regular flights. One would like to think that whether it's diversions or requests for ad hoc flights, there is proper coordination and communication between Airport and Agent. In certain circumstances, it may be possible for an alternative Handling Agent to take the work depending on existing contract constraints. Whether the Airport would apply pressure on Agents to accept additional business is another question.

[AndrewH52]

It may well be down to the nature of the cargo given the limited capacity of the ground handlers at the moment. For instance, the various PPE flights operating into Liverpool during December aren’t palletised so can contain thousands of packages that have to be offloaded by hand.

[Saabdriver1]

Given where MAN's resourcing is for security and passenger handling (and cargo needs security and ground handling too) then I'd suggest that the last thing it needs to be doing right now is welcoming a labour-intensive set of cargo flights. By all means, sort out the resourcing and then go after the business - but not right here and now!

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

Interesting few comments and observations.

As an outsider I'm always interested in a good debate from what appears to be informed members.

[Navpi]

That's an interesting question regarding the relationships between Airlines, Handling Agents and the Airport.
The Airport's Business Development people will be trying to attract new business from airlines, perhaps with incentives where permitted, as well as maintaining relationships with existing airlines. But on a day to day basis when flights are operating, it's the Handling Agent providing the service to the Airlines. As an outsider, I assume from the Airport's standpoint that the Handling Agent is a tenant under which certain standard of performance are required but I'm sure others will be more knowledgeable on this. It's been said in the past that airlines are the customers of the handling agents and the airport's customers are the passengers. Is that a bit too simplistic perhaps?

For ad hoc flights like the freighters mentioned, wouldn't the airline's initial contact be with the Airport and also with ACL? The choice of Handling Agent I imagine may be dependent on whether there is a contract with a particular Agent at other Airports.

Questions have arisen in the past on the old chestnut of when MAN has turned diversions away. Sometimes it has apparently been the Airport itself because of a lack of parking space for example. At other times, it appears to have been the Handling Agents who've refused extra traffic allegedly because of a lack of staff or work load with regular flights. One would like to think that whether it's diversions or requests for ad hoc flights, there is proper coordination and communication between Airport and Agent. In certain circumstances, it may be possible for an alternative Handling Agent to take the work depending on existing contract constraints. Whether the Airport would apply pressure on Agents to accept additional business is another question.

Good point Manfod, but no idea how the contracts work between handling agent and MAG.

Yes the loss of an airline that clearly wanted to operate to Manchester is irritating. In order to choose Manchester as a destination they must have had a rationale for wanting to do this in the first place ?

Was the freight for a customer here in the N West ?

The 1st obligation of MAG is obviously to its shareholders but it is also a vital part of the suppy chain working in partnership with handling agents for import customers and the wider business community across the North of England.

That said it was only 5 flights, (although there is of course the possible loss of any future pipeline business that they might have directed towards MAN had this been successful). I've no idea what the freight was nor for whom it was destined so that is not quantifiable.

If the handler is so stretched that it is unable to handle 5 ad hoc albeit "messy" 747s as these take up a disproportionate amount of manpower for very little reward, where does that leaves us re expansion of other routes.

Does the handler dictate who serves Manchester or MAG ?

On a wider point is anyone aware of staffing problems at other airports ?

Is it a localised problem specific to Manchester and if so why The freight village off airport for trucked freight is significant, are there better opportunities "off airport" for former employees in positions that are now seen to be more stable and financially more lucrative ?

Birmingham is currently taking numerous cargo charters and has a similar economic demographic to Manchester albeit within a smaller footprint does anyone know if they too are suffering structual issues ?

[SWBKCB]

Yes the loss of an airline that clearly wanted to operate to Manchester is irritating. In order to choose Manchester as a destination they must have had a rationale for wanting to do this in the first place ?

I can think of two very good reasons why they wanted to be in Manchester just before Christmas, and they aren't cargo related.

I think the fact that the cargo has ended up in BOH rather than any of the usual suspects in between - especially when 'every other airport seems to be milking' this sector - suggests that the cargo isn't destination sensitive. I think it comes down to who has the resource to bulk load/unload a widebody (don't think BOH has the kit for main deck pallets, so I'm assuming bulk loads). As has been mentioned previously BOH are doing it on a regular (daily?) basis.

[AndrewH52]

Navpi you only have to look at other Forums and social media to know that there plenty of staffing problems around the country. BA and Heathrow were getting grief yesterday because of delays caused by staffing. Birmingham is NOTAM’d closed on Boxing Day because of staffing shortages.

There’s still a global epidemic going on and as has been stated by others MAN’s bread and butter is it’s pax traffic so will always prioritise it over some random freight traffic that would divert scare resources, won’t make them money and in all likelihood won’t lead to long term business.

For heavens sake, take your bonnet off and let that particular bee out!

[BHX5DME]

Birmingham is NOTAM’d closed on Boxing Day because of staffing shortages.

Really ?
Can you post the NOTAM ?
BHX think they are open !

[BHX5DME]

BHX is only closed 0130-0400 on Boxing Day and it is only ATC and planned as no movements over these 2.5 hours.

All other time BHX is open for both pax and freight !

[Curious Pax]

Seen elsewhere that these flights are indeed bulk loaded, and can take 12 hours to offload. Don’t know the size of the crew, but you’re talking a significant chunk of a handling agent’s manpower dedicated to work the flight at a time when they are desperately short of staff. Frustrating, but it would be madness for them to take it on at a time when shortages are only likely to get worse in the short term. Getting in a load of zero hours people at short notice is all well and good in theory, but remember they will need ramp access, hence security clearance, which isn’t a 5 minute job these days either, and presumably adds to the cost.

Show me a business that says yes to every demand, and I’ll show you one that will have folded before long!

[UnderASouthernSky]

Rumours are that LPL have recently benefitted from PPE charters arriving there because handlers at BHX are currently refusing to accept bulk-loaded cargo charters.

Reasons that destination airports for cargo charters are chosen (no particular order):

Customer preference - often proximity to end user, ground transport considerations
Price - fuel burn to airport, airport charges, handling & freight charges
Aircraft specific - aircraft category for runway, taxiway and stand compatability
Availability of handling - agents and equipment, time to get cargo available
Timings - Airports, handling and even customs/transit shed availability
Airline preference - regular destination for them, contracts in place already, line maintenance hotac/crew swap considerations, ability to pick up return flight

The customer will not always have the final say on the destination - they maybe persuaded that another airport is preferable... particularly if an extra few hours won't impact the goods and it may be cheaper to land further away from the end user

[HOVIS]

The race to the bottom is finally starting to bite. Airlines have demanded cheaper and cheaper ground handling for years, the result is fewer staff on lower pay. The pandemic caused huge numbers of staff to leave and find better paid jobs, with better hours and working conditions. All the airport operations are struggling to recruit, from security to engineers. This week is going to test it to breaking point. It won't surprise me if there's a passenger revolt all over the news tonight!

[Navpi]

Navpi you only have to look at other Forums and social media to know that there plenty of staffing problems around the country. BA and Heathrow were getting grief yesterday because of delays caused by staffing. Birmingham is NOTAM’d closed on Boxing Day because of staffing shortages.

There’s still a global epidemic going on and as has been stated by others MAN’s bread and butter is it’s pax traffic so will always prioritise it over some random freight traffic that would divert scare resources, won’t make them money and in all likelihood won’t lead to long term business.

For heavens sake, take your bonnet off and let that particular bee out!

So you get your info from other forums then dress this up as fact. Deary me.

If you are going to quote data make sure you get your facts correct as it diminishes the rest of your comments.

Ps Birmingham is most defintly not NOTAMED CLOSED all day Boxing Day. I have friends in the midlands flying out of there.

Sit Down.

[Navpi]

Rumours are that LPL have recently benefitted from PPE charters arriving there because handlers at BHX are currently refusing to accept bulk-loaded cargo charters.

Reasons that destination airports for cargo charters are chosen (no particular order):

Customer preference - often proximity to end user, ground transport considerations
Price - fuel burn to airport, airport charges, handling & freight charges
Aircraft specific - aircraft category for runway, taxiway and stand compatability
Availability of handling - agents and equipment, time to get cargo available
Timings - Airports, handling and even customs/transit shed availability
Airline preference - regular destination for them, contracts in place already, line maintenance hotac/crew swap considerations, ability to pick up return flight

The customer will not always have the final say on the destination - they maybe persuaded that another airport is preferable... particularly if an extra few hours won't impact the goods and it may be cheaper to land further away from the end user

Many thanks for your sensible input.

i believe that Swissport do handle at BOU so yes it crossed my mind that if the consideration to the end user destination was not that critical the handler could say to their customer we have a better, cheaper and possibly quicker option even if that means additional trucking to the final destination.

My point stands however regarding the influence if any of MAG in the decision making.

I was just curious as to whether they would even be aware, that a request that came in to the handling agent potentially to use Manchester, subsequently ended up with the flight at Bournemouth based on a decion made by the handling agent and not the airport.

I can see the absolute sense in the handling agent making a decision that supports their own business, and their own interests but it seems odd to me from the outside that MAG might potentially be unaware of this and care even less despite being the epi centre on the Northern supply chain.

In addtion this only seems to work one way. It always seems to be traffic bound for Manchester which falls victim to the economies of scale of the handling agent. Are there ever occasions where enquiries made to other airports end up coming our way ?

[MANFOD]

Good question Navpi, and I'm sure those who have contributed informed posts may know the answer. Would the first port of call be to the airport or to a handling agent? And would it be dependent on whether the carrier had an existing contract with a specific handler at other airports?

[AndrewH52]

So you get your info from other forums then dress this up as fact. Deary me.

If you are going to quote data make sure you get your facts correct as it diminishes the rest of your comments.

Ps Birmingham is most defintly not NOTAMED CLOSED all day Boxing Day. I have friends in the midlands flying out of there.

Sit Down.

From someone whose posts contain no data and a whole lot of supposition, that’s rich.

Anyway, I will at least admit to reading the NOTAM incorrectly. Closures are for two days but for short periods in the early hours.

P2765/21 NOTAMN
Q) EGTT/QAECD/IV/NBO/AE/000/145/5225N00152W020
A) EGBB B) 2112260130 C) 2112270400
D) 0130-0400
E) BIRMINGHAM CTA AND CTR DEACTIVATED AND REVERT TO CLASS G AIRSPACE.
ATC CLOSED. AERODROME CLOSED. PILOTS ARE TO MAKE BLIND TRANSMISSIONS
WHEN LEAVING THE LATERAL CONFINES OF THE CTR/CTA. CLOSURE DUE TO
STAFF SHORTAGES.

[SWBKCB]

In addtion this only seems to work one way. It always seems to be traffic bound for Manchester which falls victim to the economies of scale of the handling agent. Are there ever occasions where enquiries made to other airports end up coming our way ?

MAN benefits hugely from economies of scale. If there is a flight from anywhere else in the north of England (Britain?), and a similar one from MAN, you know which one is most likely to get cancelled. MAN also benefits from its big cusomer base of airlines, where ad hoc flights tend to go where there are pre-existing relationships - the various delivery flights over the years being the most eye-catching examples.

[MANFOD]

That notam I find confusing. (A) seems to indicate 01.30 on the 26th to 04.00 on the 27th if I'm reading it correctly.
But does (D) then qualify that and mean it's only closed during those hours on each of the 2 nights?

[lfc84]

MAN benefits hugely from economies of scale. If there is a flight from anywhere else in the north of England (Britain?), and a similar one from MAN, you know which one is most likely to get cancelled. MAN also benefits from its big cusomer base of airlines, where ad hoc flights tend to go where there are pre-existing relationships - the various delivery flights over the years being the most eye-catching examples.
Manchester benefits for huge economies of scale?
In that case they should use their commercial powers to attract more security staff to fix the shortages

[brian_dromey]

If the freight has gone all the way to BOH, it does suggest that the usual suspects for freight are unable to accommodate either. If the flight had gone to EMA or STN the usual conspiracy could have been rolled out.

The debate about T&Cs and outsourcing in the industry are interesting. Ryanair and easyJet are beginning to see the benefits of taking their largest stations in-house, or at least operated by an group division, or joint venture. Reading between the lines it looks like Swissport just cannot deliver the flexibility and performance that Ryanair and easyJet need at their biggest stations, so the pendulum on outsourcing may be beginning to swing in the other direction. But if Swissport and the few other remaining companies cannot serve their regular customers there is little hope of them serving some ad-hoc charters.
https://airlinergs.com/issue-article/ryanair-to-self-handle-in-spain-and-stansted/

[Navpi]

I agree Brian.

It's almost like the ground handlers are running the show and deciding who comes in and who they send elsewhere NOT MAG management.

[Navpi]

MAN benefits hugely from economies of scale. If there is a flight from anywhere else in the north of England (Britain?), and a similar one from MAN, you know which one is most likely to get cancelled. MAN also benefits from its big cusomer base of airlines, where ad hoc flights tend to go where there are pre-existing relationships - the various delivery flights over the years being the most eye-catching examples.

Well i was actually going to say it's usually the Manchester flight but I'm sure you actually mean a service into Birmingham, EMA, LBA or Liverpool. 😁

On a theme the Liverpool route development are doing some excellent work, who could possibly have conceived of Lufthansa starting over there given the excellent network and indeed long standing relationship with Manchester.

When one of your largest customers pitches up 20 miles away albeit 4 days a week it's still a bit of an eye roll moment.

Economies of scale fell flat with that one.

[MANFOD]

The debate about T&Cs and outsourcing in the industry are interesting. Ryanair and easyJet are beginning to see the benefits of taking their largest stations in-house, or at least operated by an group division, or joint venture. Reading between the lines it looks like Swissport just cannot deliver the flexibility and performance that Ryanair and easyJet need at their biggest stations, so the pendulum on outsourcing may be beginning to swing in the other direction. But if Swissport and the few other remaining companies cannot serve their regular customers there is little hope of them serving some ad-hoc charters.
https://airlinergs.com/issue-article/ryanair-to-self-handle-in-spain-and-stansted/

An interesting post and thanks for the link. I'd forgotten that Ryanair had changed their handling arrangements at STN. If their proposed expansion at MAN for the summer based on slots goes ahead, I wonder if the situation here will be reviewed, although on a different scale to STN.
I think I'm right in saying that Jet2, which has a substantial operation at MAN, particularly over the summer, do their own handling. Whether that applies at their other bases, I'm not sure.

[OzzyOzBorn]

AndrewH52 -

QUOTE: For heavens sake, take your bonnet off and let that particular bee out!

Amidst an otherwise constructive and civilised discussion, you alone posted disrespectful content (quote above refers), so it is unbecoming to act offended when you receive a robust response by return. Far better to post constructive content which adds to the debate rather than resorting to attempts to humiliate or ridicule other posters. And your post 888 does read as if BHX is notamed closed all day (as opposed to a H2.30 block at night), so it is legitimate for other readers to challenge you on that claim.

On the core issue under discussion, it is clear that MAN has turned away a series of flights, which does appear to be an uncomfortably common occurrence at this airport in particular. MAN actually became known as "the airport that likes to say NO" in certain sectors of the industry. I'd like to see that strapline consigned to history, but this unwelcome reputation seems as valid as ever at this point.

As others have explained, there are occasions when it makes sense for a business to turn away ad-hoc work. Most here would recognise that. But it seems to be almost the norm at MAN - we've come to expect them to say NO by default - and at a time when they've lost around two-thirds of their pre-covid regular throughput, it is legitimate to ask the question as to why they still don't pull out the stops to win back some incremental business. Staff shortages seem to be the answer, but if they can't handle a massively reduced workload (compared with 2019 levels), it is fair to enquire whether they were over-zealous with redundancies / furloughs and whether they're avoidably behind the curve in building back capability. I'm not judging whether MAG have got it wrong - maybe so, maybe not - but it is an appropriate discussion to have on a Manchester Airport forum. So please do treat all contributors with respect, and add only comments which further inform the debate.

[brian_dromey]

An interesting post and thanks for the link. I'd forgotten that Ryanair had changed their handling arrangements at STN. If their proposed expansion at MAN for the summer based on slots goes ahead, I wonder if the situation here will be reviewed, although on a different scale to STN.
I think I'm right in saying that Jet2, which has a substantial operation at MAN, particularly over the summer, do their own handling. Whether that applies at their other bases, I'm not sure.

Interestingly its not just STN, Azur is at 25 Spanish airports and they also mention Poland as well. They have always self-handled at DUB too. Jet2 self-handle at LBA, MAN, EMA, STN, Murcia, Alicante, Palma, Almeria, Malaga, Barcelona, Reus, Menorca, Ibiza, Girona, the Canaries, and Faro. I think there might be more, where they just have "above wing" agents, Im sure Jet2 had uniformed staff at DBV when I was there a few years back. Either contract or direct employed, it's safe to say they have invested a huge amount in their own teams at airports in the UK and in Europe, especially in respect to their size.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Ryanair self handle (ooer missus!) at Dublin but the STN operation is a joint venture with a.n.other 3rd party handler and is labelled as "Blue Handling", like Norwegian at LGW who still have control of Red Handling and the few remaining zero hours rampies. I think they're arms length 3rd party branding rather than in-house, even GGS at LGW isn't really in-house for BA.

[brian_dromey]

Ryanair self handle (ooer missus!) at Dublin but the STN operation is a joint venture with a.n.other 3rd party handler and is labelled as "Blue Handling", like Norwegian at LGW who still have control of Red Handling and the few remaining zero hours rampies. I think they're arms length 3rd party branding rather than in-house, even GGS at LGW isn't really in-house for BA.

That’s true indeed. I think STN is omniserv from memory. The reasons FR and Jet2 give for taking more control over handling are fairly similar though - handling specialists could not give us the efficiency/stability/customer experience our operation required and our operation was not prioritised over all others, especially when tech/delay issues cropped up.

How any of that relates to MAN I’m not sure. But there is some signs of change in the handling business. I think the bottom of the barrel had been scraped in terms of costs - quite a few handlers have gone broke.

As for who has a say in accepting aircraft, I guess the final say does lie with the handlers in as much as an airline can’t offload the aircraft if no-one will handle it. Best off taking business elsewhere than having an aircraft and crew stranded on a taxiway at airport X.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Great points brian_dromey
So what handling agents does MAN still have nowadays?
Swissport
Menzies
DNATA
Do they have DHL?

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

I believe DHL handle easyJet.

[The96er]

Great points brian_dromey
So what handling agents does MAN still have nowadays?
Swissport
Menzies
DNATA
Do they have DHL?

You can add Stobart (Esken) to that list. Jet2 and FedEx self handle.

[Navpi]

Was there a problem at Manchester last night?

LS250 wanted to divert in but ended up in Glasgow.
They self handle so presume a company decision rather than one imposed by MAG

[MANFOD]

Was there a problem at Manchester last night?

LS250 wanted to divert in but ended up in Glasgow.
They self handle so presume a company decision rather than one imposed by MAG

MAN has a familiar "no diversions except emergencies" notam out which I assume overrides whether the handler is prepared to take diversions or not. Jet2 used EDI & NCL as alternates last evening too.
According to another forum, a Ryanair from DUB diverting from LBA this morning was refused at LPL & BHX as well as MAN.
I think the MAN notam applied from 21 Dec. until 1 Jan. and of course it could be reissued then.

Edit: Just to add that apparently a RYR positioning from MAN to LBA was even refused a return to MAN when he couldn't get into LBA, and went to LPL.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

If the handlers are willing what's the reason for the refusal? ATC are there anyway, airfield ops shouldn't reallly be required, so genuine question, what's the pain point? Previously it was lack of stands, they're not maxxed out so far as I know?

[HOVIS]

All of the handling agents, ground staff and security are at breaking point. Especially in the middle of what is effectively a four day Bank Holiday. No one wants to give up their free time to be treated like garbage by employers who are cutting terms & conditions and pay.
It's pay back time.

[MANFOD]

If the handlers are willing what's the reason for the refusal? ATC are there anyway, airfield ops shouldn't reallly be required, so genuine question, what's the pain point? Previously it was lack of stands, they're not maxxed out so far as I know?

A fair question Skip, but we don't know for sure whether any of the handlers were prepared to accept diversions, even the self-handling Jet2. One would like to think there is proper liaison with the handling agents before such a decision is taken, but inevitably, as MAN seems to have acquired something of a reputation as 'the airport that likes to say no', questions will be raised as to whether it's simply the airport itself for whatever reason that has decided on the 'no diversions' notam. My guess would be that significant staff shortages all round is the likely explanation.

[Navpi]

Fair points, maybe the ground handlers need to fix rates in the same way that lorry drivers now receive fair rates of recompense or throw in the towel.

Why can't the handling agents pay proper rates and pass these charges on as any other industry would ?

Why is the airline industry somehow immune ?

All industries are suffering but somehow seem to
get by and a natural economic order surfaces.

With regards Manchester and these diverts, it's almost as if we have created a culture where the "no can do attitude is corrosive", it appears especially so if MANFODs observation is to be believed.

I'm slightly incredulous as to who is writing these NOTAMS and making this decision, who is issuing this order ?

"you can't divert to Manchester due to a NOTAM"

Who is it who has the authority on the ground to tell an infinitely more qualified pilot circling the Pennines at 6000 feet with 200 passengers you cannot land here ?

If MANFOD is correct and both aircraft did end up in Scotland that is madness from both a safety and economics point of view. Jet2 do actually self handle at MAN so i would be really suprised if this was the result of an internal commercial decision.

[SWBKCB]

Why can't the handling agents pay proper rates and pass these charges on as any other industry would ?

Because in the grand scheme of things, two aircraft diverting to Scotland doesn't matter - to the airlines its a drop in the ocean, they won't pay extra for 99.99% of their flights so the 00.01% can get diverted to the most convenient place, it won't make the 24 hour news cycle, there won't be questions in parliament, there won't be a Twitter storm. just a few raised eyebrows on specialist forums.

And that's just like any other industry.

[AndrewH52]

The Ryanairs ended up in Edinburgh mainly because Liverpool wasn’t accepting diversions yesterday due to staff shortages.

The aircrew would have known MAN wasn’t an option before they left the ground as the NOTAM about only accepting emergency diversions was issued in 20th December and runs through to 1st January.

[BACsuperVC10]

MAN has a familiar "no diversions except emergencies" notam out which I assume overrides whether the handler is prepared to take diversions or not. Jet2 used EDI & NCL as alternates last evening too.
According to another forum, a Ryanair from DUB diverting from LBA this morning was refused at LPL & BHX as well as MAN.
I think the MAN notam applied from 21 Dec. until 1 Jan. and of course it could be reissued then.

Edit: Just to add that apparently a RYR positioning from MAN to LBA was even refused a return to MAN when he couldn't get into LBA, and went to LPL.

I don't know if you are talking about the same FR flight, but it then left LPL for LBA, couldn't get in again, then went back to LPL for a second time.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

Handling agents have been in a race to the bottom for years, slashing costs and wages as the airlines demand more for less every time. It can go massively wrong if you need a decent level of service though, Virgin dropped Swissport Gatwick and BA had to take their outsourced LGW ramp operation over (albeit with the same people they used to employ) as GGS when Swissport dropped the ball. Indeed Ryanair did the same at STN with er....Swissport. Running theme there maybe, bottom line being there's loads of zero hour contracts and no contingency when things don't run to plan. Blame the airlines, who blame the market for expecting something for almost nothing. It makes the old Servisair look like a gold plated superstar by comparison.

[SWBKCB]

It makes the old Servisair look like a gold plated superstar by comparison.

What are you suggesting?!?

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

That 3rd party handling used to be staffed in a way that allowed for some contingency, I mention Servisair as they were the most famous of the old UK GHAs. They were also based in Stockport I think?

[SWBKCB]

Wilmslow. Much maligned and often with good reason, but also often only as good as the various airlines Operations teams. Not always dealing with the elite.

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

True but they handled the likes of American and the other long haul carriers as well as the Costa charters. Funding has been cut to the bone since then.

[Seljuk22]

Qatar will go 18 weekly starting February and frequency will be maintained during summer 2022
Emirates 3rd daily flight now visible starting 1st July. Overall 2 daily 2-class A380 (615 seats) and 1 daily 3-class A380

[Navpi]

Did we establish if the No Divs NOTAM was prompted by the handler or MAG.

It's not like turning a truck away from a supermarket........

As Captain Mainwaring once said "its not Sainsburys , Godfrey".

[MANFOD]

Did we establish if the No Divs NOTAM was prompted by the handler or MAG.

It's not like turning a truck away from a supermarket........

As Captain Mainwaring once said "its not Sainsburys , Godfrey".

I think the answer is 'No' Navpi. Obviously the notam was issued by MAN, but whether or not that was primarily an airport decision or one prompted after feed back from the GHAs remains an unknown unless any contributor on here knows for certain.
Incidentally, I understand EMA took a Ryanair diversion from LBA so it wasn't a MAG dictat.

As mentioned, Servisair was locally based for MAN - actually I had a feeling their office was in Bramhall at one time - and in days of yore, my recollection is that they were usually very accommodating when it came to diversions. On one particular Sunday, they took a multitude of flights from LHR including 3 x Pan Am B747s whilst a certain airline with their own ops. at Manchester managed a solitary early morning B747 before deciding that was enough extra work for the day. BA were so unpredictable, sometimes because of work-to-rules but on occasions you wondered whether it was more to do with which supervisor / team were on duty.

Still, at least we got some interesting stuff in those days at a time when MAN displayed more of a 'can do' attitude in its approach.

[SWBKCB]

on occasions you wondered whether it was more to do with which supervisor / team were on duty.

Hit the nail on the head there - and how far the overtime budget would stretch. And Alderley Edge for the head office? Rumour has it EMA turned away F1 747's recently as DHL were too busy.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

The Servisair head office use to be in Alderley Edge - when Wally Caulfield was MD - as said by SWBKCB, and then moved to Bramhall at a later date.

[commit aviation]

Both QR 747-8’s was due to operate through EMA on F1 duties Thursday & Saturday and had flight plans filed but believe DHL rejected them as the times clashed with peak time at DHL, the first operated to Doncaster and the second Milan then onto Stansted I believe.

SWBKCB
Quote lifted from East Midlands thread - suggests it was DHL which turned them away rather than EMA. A DHL business decision after looking at their "bigger picture" perhaps.

[irishlad06]

Did we establish if the No Divs NOTAM was prompted by the handler or MAG.

It's not like turning a truck away from a supermarket........

As Captain Mainwaring once said "its not Sainsburys , Godfrey".

no DIV NOTAM issued by MAG

[Navpi]

Hit the nail on the head there - and how far the overtime budget would stretch. And Alderley Edge for the head office? Rumour has it EMA turned away F1 747's recently as DHL were too busy.

As was said, they went to Doncaster, "oh the luxury in this climate of being able to turn away business, at both a tactical and indeed strategic level."
-------------------------------
In terms of "passenger" diverts , actually getting passengers onwards OR NOT to their ultimate destination does not seem to be a priority in the decision process, incredibly getting an aircraft safely on the ground appears even far less critical !








.

[commit aviation]

Navpi
Surely there is little point an aircraft diverting to an airport if there are no staff to handle it. That just results in bad press for the airport as they take the blame as passengers may not understand or care that ground handling is provided by a third party.
How we got to that point - with airlines wanting to pay less and less for handling has been covered so I won't cover old ground.
As for safety - any aircraft can and will declare a PAN if fuel is low and no airport I know of would turn them away. Any open airport would do so as safety is always the priority.

[SWBKCB]

incredibly getting an aircraft safely on the ground appears even far less critical !

Ridiculous comment :rolleyes:

Pesky things facts - this is what the NOTAM says:AD NOT AVBL FOR DIVERTED TRAFFIC. EMERGENCIES EXCEPTED.

[OzzyOzBorn]

I accept that staff shortages are likely at the root of this. But surely that is an industry-wide problem across the whole of the UK, yet MAN uniquely seems to have a 'NO DIVS' NOTAM ready to go on a near-permanent basis. And that dates back well pre-covid too. It isn't new, and the notam is often invoked for weeks at a time offering no room for discretion. If staffing is such an all-encompassing issue, why do LHR, LGW, STN, BHX, NCL, EDI, GLA, LTN etc. not have similar notams constantly on the go as well? It seems that Manchester's management dropped the ball on this years ago, and yet seem content to coast rather than resolve the underlying issue(s). Where is the urgency to DO SOMETHING to sort out this dire culture of negativity and complacency? Don't just pass the buck to blame handling agents, Border Force etc. It is upto MAG to work with partners such as these to ensure that capability and standards are up to the level MAN requires. And security: did you offload too many staff? Are you way behind the curve in rebuilding resilience?

MR CORNISH: This ('no-divs' notam) situation has been a recurring problem ON YOUR WATCH. It didn't constantly happen under your predecessors. Are you content for MAN to be viewed as a joke airport famous for saying NO (now, what is the question?). You have just lost a HUGE swathe of business. WHERE IS THE DRIVE TO WIN IT BACK? Where is the URGENCY? Where was Manchester's route development team when nearby airports were chasing new business to rebuild schedules in the wake of Covid? Is it true that you left our team ON FURLOUGH through that critical period? Is there any progress on sorting out the alleged hangar lettings debacle which occurred on your watch? Or the long-term decline of MAN's flown-cargo business since you took charge? And that in a sector which has thrived elsewhere during these covid-hit times. Yet we know that when MAN is asked to accommodate freighters, the answer is virtually always NO for any larger aircraft type. Is MAN actually the ONLY top-50 European airport which apparently can't deploy a Hi-Lo on site? That is shameful - is there a plan to sort it out?

MR CORNISH. What do you want your legacy at MAN to be? You had some legendary predecessors who each contributed to making the place punch above it's weight. Yes, you have presided over the TP, lots of kudos for that. But under you, we have seen flown-cargo in a lamentable cycle of decline and seemingly routinely switch-sold away. Blue-chip hangar tenants exiting the campus, or potential replacements reportedly unable to access apparently idle hangars to lease for valuable new business opportunities ... in favour of what exactly? Ryanair expansion proposals turned away in the past (additional based units requested - too difficult file?). NO DIVS notams a regular feature at MAN ... will that ever end? Do you think it acceptable that the business which you run routinely turns away incremental business opportunities, month after month, even after losing 2/3+ of standard throughput during covid? And the passenger experience: are any of the Skylink travellators working (don't think so), no apparent plans to repair or replace them? The walking distances are too great for this to be left unaddressed long-term. What about a terminals transfer bus until they are fixed? T2 is great, but the T1/T3 complex deserves TLC too ... millions of customers (including all EasyJet and Ryanair pax) still use the older infrastructure.

Many years ago, MAN ran a memorable national newspaper campaign showing a doorway at the Department of Transport with a "DO NOT DISTURB" sign hung on it. Did someone perhaps make off with that sign? Whose door is it hanging from now? Please reassure us that you're actually interested in doing something to bring MAN back to life. You don't want to be remembered as the guy who presided over managed decline, do you?

[HOVIS]

Ozzy, take a chill pill mate. The airport does not pay the wages for handling agents so unless you are advocating subsidising them the status quo will continue. They man up for the work they have, not for potential diversions that may or may not happen.

[OzzyOzBorn]

So, using your logic, why doesn't this same long-term 'no-divs' issue constantly crop up at all the other large UK airports too? Do they pay the wages for their handling agents? Do they subsidise them? And it's not confined to divs either. Requests for series of cargo flights notified well in advance hit the same predictable wall of 'no-can-do' at MAN.

Your solution amounts to shrug the shoulders, blame someone else, and continue to let the low standards drift on unaddressed indefinitely.

Identifying the problem does not absolve management from striving for a solution.

[Navpi]

Ozzy, take a chill pill mate. The airport does not pay the wages for handling agents so unless you are advocating subsidising them the status quo will continue. They man up for the work they have, not for potential diversions that may or may not happen.

"Take a chill pill"

No need for the chippy comments matey.

The complacency is pervasive , maybe it's because a few of us remember a time when a Man Airport CEO had the balls to take on Government, Whitehall, Dept Of Transport and won that we actually we make comparisons now ?

For the love of God we have just lost a contract to Bournemouth of all places, not Frankfurt, Paris Amsterdam but Bournemouth, how damming is that ?

[GrahamK]

Is it maybe not something to do with the massive amount of construction work ongoing at Manchester?

[HOVIS]

So, using your logic, why doesn't this same long-term 'no-divs' issue constantly crop up at all the other large UK airports too? Do they pay the wages for their handling agents? Do they subsidise them? And it's not confined to divs either. Requests for series of cargo flights notified well in advance hit the same predictable wall of 'no-can-do' at MAN.

Your solution amounts to shrug the shoulders, blame someone else, and continue to let the low standards drift on unaddressed indefinitely.

Identifying the problem does not absolve management from striving for a solution.
Maybe other airports have free stands available, maybe they have fewer peaks and troughs. I do not know, or care. I didn't offer a solution. I'm just explaining how it is at the coal face. The handling agents right now, today, do not have enough staff to offer the type of diversion availability you want. They can barely cope with the work they have. Aircraft are still being routinely towed off and on stands every night due to lack of contact gates. All of this takes resources. Bags are being offloaded late because the team that should be doing it are still on the previous arrival/departure. There is no slack. All this at a time when flights are less than 50% of their pandemic level. There is very little revenue to support the current operation. Many aircraft are going out less than half full.
It's a mess.

[AndrewH52]

Don’t try logic or reasoning. It seems to go over both Navpi and Ozzy’s head. Rather than recognise the fact that Manchester will enjoy a couple of dozen new new routes in 2022 plus steady growth by EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2, they preferred to criticise for not building a business based on taking a handful of Ryanair diversions from Leeds or a few ad hoc freight flights.

[Navpi]

Don’t try logic or reasoning. It seems to go over both Navpi and Ozzy’s head. Rather than recognise the fact that Manchester will enjoy a couple of dozen new new routes in 2022 plus steady growth by EasyJet, Ryanair and Jet2, they preferred to criticise for not building a business based on taking a handful of Ryanair diversions from Leeds or a few ad hoc freight flights.

A couple of dozen you say, that's excellent, if you can provide a comprehensive list that would be excellent.

If its based on proposals via ACL i suspect that's merely crystal ball gazing.

Regarding freight, nothing to be concerned about here although we are 40% down on freight, not that it matters as there is of course no money in that business anyway.

[chaps1954]

There are a lot of new schedules that are bookable with Ryanair and Easyjet plus quite a few others.
Cargo is mainly underbelly so therefore is down as the number of schedule services is down. when the cargo has to unloaded by hand as did the B777 in Liverpool
it is time and labour intensive (12 hours per flight) it is quite likely that none of the handling agent wanted it.

[MANFOD]

Two points briefly on new routes.
Firstly, we need to see the final picture much closer to the start of the summer schedules. It's true that the initial ACL report did show additional based a/c for Ryanair and easyjet compared to where we were in 2019, and we live in hope that will come to pass, if only partially.

Secondly, although some new routes have been formally announced and are bookable, there are some existing pre-covid routes and initially planned new ones that appear at present not to be operating in S22. Ultimately it's the net position and capacity by the number of seats that will show whether or not growth by specific airlines is reflected in the schedules.

[OzzyOzBorn]

QUOTE: "I do not know, or care."

Oh WOW. That is Manchester's problem right there. Neatly summarised in six short words.

Thankyou, HOVIS. I take it that you are a MAN-based handling agent, then? Or have experience of the role?

But whilst I don't doubt the issues you identify, I do differ from you on how MAG and their onsite handling agency partners should respond to them.

Let's analyse the points you raise.

"Maybe other airports have free stands available, maybe they have fewer peaks and troughs."

This issue is best addressed by implementation of a dynamic diversion policy (which is the way most airports do address stand availability). Airport operators issue advice to ATC and operators along the lines of we can accommodate one more widebody and upto three aircraft of A321/B738 size. This process ensures that the airport can make best use of available resources, yet not become overloaded beyond their capability. It maximises the revenue opportunity, which is a good thing for all concerned. A blanket "NO DIVS" notam offers none of this flexibility. It is a blunt instrument, inappropriate for use at a major airport for days and weeks at a time. An advisory of this sort should only be used when exceptional circumstances dictate, and that should apply for a matter of hours only and be subject to regular review. Remember that handling agents are not the only folks to be considered in this loop. When the largest airport in Northern England refuses all diversions, do you realise the pressure this places on ATC, amongst others? Other agencies have to deal with the fallout. They don't have the option to shrug their shoulders and look the other way. And they aren't overrun with extra staff on call either.

"The handling agents right now, today, do not have enough staff to offer the type of diversion availability you want."

Do you speak for all handling agents on the campus? When a Jet2 flight which had recently departed MAN asked to return, they fell foul of the no divs notam and were turned away by default. But Jet2 self-handles at MAN. They wouldn't ask to come back to MAN if they were unable to handle their own aircraft on site. So again, a dynamic diversion policy would address this. If Jet2 are able to service their own diverted aircraft, allow them the flexibility to do so. That doesn't impact other handling companies which don't have the resources to cope, does it? But the blanket no divs notam allows no discretion to those operators which can cope. Let them do their job on their own terms.

As for not having enough staff, there are ways to address this. At MAN, the ingrained culture seems to be that nothing can be done, or perhaps we don't know or care. The solution is actually to recruit sufficient staff to cope with the business opportunity which an airport the size of MAN offers. And to motivate those staff with appropriate terms and conditions. Yes, I am aware of the race to the bottom which has resulted in the collapse of staff morale amongst handling agents, and across other departments at MAN. Demotivated, miserable staff won't go the extra mile to help when the need arises. They won't pitch in for overtime shifts when they're desperately needed. They say things like we don't know, or care. But this mindset should not be allowed to prevail unaddressed. A good management team will bring all interested parties together to resolve a situation of this sort for the long-term benefit of the airport operation as a whole. MAG in particular needs to address this, because we are not seeing these problems on anything like this scale at other similar airports. And I very much doubt that handling agency staff at competing airports are on significantly better pay, terms and conditions than their MAN-based counterparts. So the problem is Manchester-specific.

"All of this takes resources."

Of course. Things don't happen by magic on an airport campus. If the airport suffers a chronic shortage of contact stands on a routine basis, that is an issue which senior management should be addressing. Mr Cornish, Ms Smart ... over to you! Baggage teams unavailable due to being deployed on earlier aircraft. This again relates to understaffing ... an issue which can and should be addressed. The solution to this should not be beyond the wit of any self-respecting manager.

"Many aircraft are going out less than half full. It's a mess."

I acknowledge this and agree with you. Not only are the aircraft half full, there are far fewer of them! The mismanagement of C-19 by inept and cowardly politicians has reaped devastation across this industry above all. The lack of help for aviation in the UK from HMG has been shameful. But it's always darkest before the dawn, and pandemic restrictions cannot last for ever. Politicians who seek re-election cannot abuse their voters indefinitely. And there is certainly huge pent-up travel demand awaiting the day that border restrictions are removed, pointless testing is axed, and the uncertainty of crazed kneejerk quarantine orders are removed from the equation. Our industry needs to be ready for this, ahead of the curve. Management teams must think ahead and train up staff now ... how ever challenging that may be financially. Because - perhaps as soon as Easter 2022 - restriction-free travel will return. Management at MAN needs to make sure that the entire campus is ready for this, inhouse staff and and partner agencies alike. Yes, it will require money, investment and close liaison with other agencies on campus. But the airport must prepare now. This is the key challenge which Mr Cornish, Ms Smart and their business partners must prepare for. It will be quite the challenge.

In answer to GrahamK: I believe that the taxiway realignment work at MAN is largely complete now. If I'm mistaken, others can correct me, but I'm not under the impression that large-scale work-in-progress is impacting apron availability at this point.

And to Andrew H52: Your posting is gratuitously abusive, but that reflects on you. However, your advocacy for Liverpool Airport is a common theme amongst your posts. When MAN turns away business, whether potential diversions or a series of cargo flights such as Nordwind, much of that business ends up at LPL. Those new routes which MAN does welcome will have been secured in spite of the long furlough of the marketing team. We know that opportunities were missed during their absence (Vueling, Transavia, others?). Competing airports benefitted from that own goal. So your motive in cheerleading the status quo is transparent. But contributors such as Navpi and myself will continue to encourage MAG management to address the challenges which the airport faces head-on. My posting record shows that I give praise where it is deserved and criticism where it is justified. The weakspots which I highlight to managers at MAN are very specific, not generic. A good management team should be motivated to address them. They should strive to make MAN the best it can be. I won't apologise for urging them to do that.

[Sioltach Dubh Glas]

An excellent and well thought-out response Ozzy.

I can only hope that MAG/MAN management read these constructive posts and possibly manage to respond, in some way, to Ozzy's post.

[MANFOD]

An excellent and well thought-out response Ozzy.

I can only hope that MAG/MAN management read these constructive posts and possibly manage to respond, in some way, to Ozzy's post.

Agreed! Some contributors on here, and I include myself, have been regular, even frequent, users of MAN, and / or enthusiasts and / or employed at the airport for decades. We appreciate its history and why it was Manchester that through hard work and ambition achieved just shy of 30m passengers in 2019 rather than Birmingham or any other non-London airport. Getting MAN designated as an International Gateway airport rather than just Prestwick outside of London in the 80's was no mean feat; nor was the intense lobbying by management of government and the DfT in the early 80's to break the barrier of bilateral agreements that eventually succeeded in seeing American and Singapore start flights to MAN. I know that at least 1 occasional contributor on here was involved in those negotiations. It showed ambition and determination. And later there was the meticulous planning and the battle won for the second runway.

It's against this background that folk like Ozzy and Navpi as well as myself get frustrated by the perceived complacency reflected in more recent times on certain issues, which makes us question why that ambition and 'can do' mentality of years past is seemingly no longer there. I agree the TP is a major project for which the airport management deserves credit, and it's unfortunate that covid has delayed completion of aspects of it such as piers 2 & 3 or the opening of airline lounges. But Ozzy is right - there are issues which could, and must, be addressed, and solutions found, in liaison with its airport partners. It's not just a case of complaining but trying to offer constructive criticism.

[SWBKCB]

When the largest airport in Northern England refuses all diversions, do you realise the pressure this places on ATC, amongst others? Other agencies have to deal with the fallout. They don't have the option to shrug their shoulders and look the other way. And they aren't overrun with extra staff on call either.

Declaring your unavailability in advance should actually help ATC and the airlines - crews won't plan for MAN as an alternate. What is worse is saying your available but then having to turn flights away at the last minute, creating additional workload for crews and ATC replanning.

Running short of ground crew because of flights not running to schedule is nothing new - I remember running around like a blue a*sed fly 40 years when everything turned to sh*t, as my supervisor used to so eloquently put it. It's not just about good management, somebody has to pay for the system to be running with sufficient flex to cope with additional flights. BTW, the main restraining factor for us taking diversions years ago used to be availablity of coaches for onward transport...

[Una Due Tfc]

When LHR, LGW or DUB close for whatever reason, ourselves in ATC know MAN won't be helping out. SNN, BFS, the Scottish and other London airports will happily take whatever they can, as will DUB if it isn't the one closed. The airlines/crews are the ones who make the decision on where to go ultimately and that decision needs to be made relatively quickly. This has been the case for years now. I remember some poor AA 777 5 years or so ago couldn't get in to LHR due crosswinds after 2 go arounds. MAN was his filed alternate, he wanted to head up for a splash and dash, MAN couldn't take him. He ended up in DUB out of hours and everyone had to overnight. Skipper was spitting venom I believe.

[OzzyOzBorn]

SWBKCB - It is all a matter of timescale. ATC does not require two weeks notice that an airport is unavailable for diversions. Dynamic information is the norm. Diversions are almost always a last minute decision. Far better to have the major airport pitch in and help out with such extra traffic as it can accommodate, rather than to just shrug the shoulders and pass the buck to other agencies. If they accept half of the aircraft needing to divert, that is half the problem resolved. It really helps. Those aircraft are safely out of the system. Better to deal with the few which can't be accepted in the end than with the entire disrupted flight programme.

Ultimately, we're talking about an inter-connected system here. Flights rejected by MAN have to be vectored to other alternate airports. That is extra workload. And those aircraft will require the services of a handling agent wherever they do end up. Probably staffed by workers employed on similar T&C's to those at MAN. With all the same concerns. If the largest airport routinely shirks its share of the workload, that stresses every other agency in the system. It is not something to flaunt with a smirk and a sense of entitlement. It is the main reason that MAN has become a joke within the industry: "The airport which likes to say NO".

It's not good enough.

One final point here. Most replies have followed up on the issue of MAN refusing diversions. But my original post wasn't primarily about diversions at all. It was about the "no-can-do" culture which has become pervasive across several departments within the MAN operation. The no-divs policy is just one symptom of that. Many employees seem to brandish their bolshie 'not my problem' attitude with pride. That is a cancer on the operation, and it is a problem which has grown exponentially under Mr Cornish's leadership. Many staff don't feel valued for whatever reason, and they have withdrawn their goodwill in consequence. Some appear to take pride in being uncooperative and looking out for their own narrow interests alone. There is no team ethos. It is a major concern, and one which I would like to see Mr Cornish and Ms Smart actively address, along with partner agencies across the airport complex.

[SWBKCB]

We'll have to agree to disagree - from my point of view it's better to have as much certainty in the system as early as possible. Better to say you can't take anything than to have to turn a/c away at the last minute. It's the last minute changes and re-planning which cause stress and uncertainty and needs to be reduced .

[Mr Mac]

ozzyozBorn
I am a regular (twice a week normally) user of the airport, and would concur with your thoughts on the no can do attitude that pervades the place now, along with some pretty rude, and obviously de motivated staff in customer facing roles, which is never going to end well.

Cheers
Mr Mac

[MANFOD]

We'll have to agree to disagree - from my point of view it's better to have as much certainty in the system as early as possible. Better to say you can't take anything than to have 20 a/c plan you as alternate and then have to turn half of them away at the last minute. It's the last minute changes and re-planning which cause stress and uncertainty and needs to be reduced .

I accept the logic in your argument to a degree but it doesn't answer some basic questions: -
Why is it MAN, an international airport that claims it is capable of handling up to 50m passengers a year, that feels the need to do this so often - and it's not just something that's arisen because of covid?
Why is the blanket notam issued for extended periods? The one issued 20 December until today has now been renewed for another week. No surprise there!

With cat 3B available at many airports and with modern a/c and crew so validated, the mass diversions of the 70s and 80s are now a very rare occurrence in the UK. It takes heavy snow fall, storm force winds or a blocked runway to cause major problems. As ozzy points out, in today's dynamic age of technology and instant information, a few diversions from LBA or BHX occasionally shouldn't really be a big headache from a pilot or ATC perspective.

That doesn't solve the problems on the ground with GHAs, airport staff, T & Cs, attitudes etc, and as has been said, those issues can't simply be left to simmer. They have to be addressed and solutions found. To reiterate, the 'no diversions' policy is simply one example of what many perceive as a negative mentality prevailing at MAN.

[SWBKCB]

Thanks - I was merely addressing Navpi's and Ozzy's comments re ATC stresses and safety and the diversion policy. I expect the rest of the issues are around incessant outsourcing and sub-contracting, which makes Ozzy's team ethos "difficult" - with MAN's size being a disadvantage in this area against the smaller competitors he references. Its not all about leadership and management, funding is needed as well.

[ATNotts]

ozzyozBorn
I am a regular (twice a week normally) user of the airport, and would concur with your thoughts on the no can do attitude that pervades the place now, along with some pretty rude, and obviously de motivated staff in customer facing roles, which is never going to end well.

Cheers
Mr Mac
If you pay peanuts you inevitably wind up employing monkeys (with apologies to our primate cousins). If you then proceed to run them ragged and treat them like sh1t you get the results you describe.

That's not singling out MAN in particular but is a reference to how the service users, corporate or end users demand a service but are unwilling to pay the full price for it.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Better to say you can't take anything than to have to turn a/c away at the last minute.

I can see where we are misunderstanding each other here. I have no objection to an airport advising that it can't accept diversions, eg. because it is already full, or due to a closed runway etc. In this situation, advance notice can only be a positive thing. The difference arises when the actual word we should be using is won't. That is a different matter entirely. MAN's stand availability is not 100% bulked-out. Busy, but not full. And whilst some handling agents may indeed be working at capacity, I cite again the example of Jet2 who self-handle at MAN. If they want to divert their own aircraft in and feel they have the means to self-handle them, why is a faceless airport official pushing out a piece of paper two weeks beforehand removing their discretion to do that? It makes no sense.

A dynamic diversion policy offering discretion to operators is what is needed here, and it is the way things are done at almost every other major airport. A discretionary policy does not mean the airport becoming swamped, it means accepting what can be accommodated and refusing only those which really can't (as opposed to everything, by default).

Most diversions arise at short notice anyway, so airports and agencies do not need to know the specifics days in advance, nor is that possible. A broad seasonal diversion plan should cover the essentials at this time of year.

[HOVIS]

The airport IS full. There are still lots of parked aircraft around. It does not matter if Jet2 self handle or not, they don't have their own stands, they are a shared resource. When we stop towing the early arrivals off stand only to tow them back again 3 hrs later, just to make room for a transiting inbound scheduled flight, then and only then can diversions be accepted. The old days of parking a 747 full of passengers on the taxiway for half a day have gone. Take a look at the apron next time, you will see very few if any free stands, remote or otherwise. Its all very well saying the airport should do this, that and the other, but until there is a very positive indication that this nasty business is over, then investment in staff, trading and other resources is not going to happen.

[cumbrianboy]

The airport IS full. There are still lots of parked aircraft around. It does not matter if Jet2 self handle or not, they don't have their own stands, they are a shared resource. When we stop towing the early arrivals off stand only to tow them back again 3 hrs later, just to make room for a transiting inbound scheduled flight, then and only then can diversions be accepted. The old days of parking a 747 full of passengers on the taxiway for half a day have gone. Take a look at the apron next time, you will see very few if any free stands, remote or otherwise. Its all very well saying the airport should do this, that and the other, but until there is a very positive indication that this nasty business is over, then investment in staff, trading and other resources is not going to happen.

An excellent point and the issue of stand capacity is a very real. I experience this first hand on a regular basis …

[OzzyOzBorn]

I see the apron regularly and the airport is NOT permanently full for days on end. Yes, there are plenty of parked-up aircraft, but that is not the same thing as 'full'. If the airport were actually "full" as you say, it would be necessary to hold each inbound flight until a departing aircraft vacates a stand for it, wouldn't it? That is clearly not required, as the airport is not "full". Some (vacant) stands may indeed be set aside for an incoming flight, but not all of them. And not all day - a 'splash-and-dash' could certainly be accommodated in the middle of the day. Most diverted flights don't require contact stands anyway. And that is why a dynamic diversion policy should apply. The alternative reflects the lamentable "do not disturb" mentality which Manchester Airport highlighted to great effect when challenging the Department of Transport all those years ago.

Not every diversion can be accepted. We all recognise that. But some certainly can. I strongly suspect that those aforementioned Jet2's could have been accommodated. And what about smaller aircraft such as Citations and Learjets? A catch-all blanket no-divs notam prevents them from enquiring about access by default also.

A dynamic diversion policy allows for aircraft which genuinely cannot be accommodated to be turned away. But those which can be accommodated can be accepted. That is a good thing, though the "not my problem" brigade clearly need some convincing. Almost all other major airports operate a dynamic diversions policy without issue. But perhaps this is another example of the "Manchester way" alone being right beyond question, and every other major airport being incompetent without realising it.

the issue of stand capacity is a very real. I experience this first hand on a regular basis …

Yes, on a regular basis. That means not permanently. Which is why a dynamic policy should apply. Scope to use discretion is a good thing in a successful business.

[Navpi]

From the Manchester Airport World Cargo Page.

"Manchester Airport's cargo facility, the World Freight Terminal, is a community of more than 1,000 professionals managing freight-only aircraft as well as consignments that arrive or depart in the holds of passenger aircraft. Having grown to meet the increasing demands on importers and exporters across the country, our 24/7 service operates from 60,000 square metres of warehouse and office space for a comprehensive air cargo support system."

One might summise that despite not having 1000 professionals onsite, not always a 24/7 operation , nor warehousing which has carpet bombed the surrounding area, Liverpool and indeed Bournemouth are able to compete really well ?

How is this possible ?

What was a sprinkling of freight flights into Liverpool has now morphed into a half a dozen flights a week until April, today there are actually two flights, so why is it that what's seen as an inconvenience at one airport with (in its own words) a wealth of infastructure is seen as a revenue and employment opportunity elsewhere ?

If you were CEO at Manchester would you not be contrasting and comparing the resources at hand ?

And what of Bournemouth, as an example , it had a meagre throughput of cargo a few years back but accordinging to this weeks Bournmouth Echo is on target this year to handle 20,000 tonnes,

From a standing start with no operators , no routes and very little infastructure the CEO is bullish reporting a forecast cargo throughput for 2022 of 40,000 tonnes.

In context that is a staggering 40% of the Manchester total pre pandemic and nearer 75% of the Manchester figures post pandemic.

Many detractors have suggested that one adhoc off cargo flights are nothing more than a hindrance , a nuisance but that completely misses the fact they can clearly turn into something more substantive.

One wonders what the CEOs of Liverpool and Bournemouth could do with 10% of the resources available at Manchester?

[SWBKCB]

Maybe actually look at what the BOH operation is before comparing it to Manchester? Do you really think it's driven by airport CEO's and airport marketing departments?

[Navpi]

Maybe actually look at what the BOH operation is before comparing it to Manchester? Do you really think it's driven by airport CEO's and airport marketing departments?

I think the CEOs at both airports lead by example ?
Despite their limited resources they maximise opportunities !

[MANFOD]

On the question of parking stands, I recall some concern was expressed when it was suggested (I believe by an airport spokesman) that when the TP was complete, there would only be 1 extra stand. This was later modified along the lines that a comparison was difficult because of more multi-purpose stands to accommodate different types of aircraft.

With delays to the project, what is the current situation? The plans incorporated for example parallel taxiways for T2 to reduce delays which would mean the loss of some parking stands on the western apron and I think in the centre block - the 80s and 240/250 stands. However, there was to be a new bank of about 12 new stands to the far side of the new Pier 1 along the airfield boundary edge. I think those stands have been constructed but I'm not sure if they are commissioned and in use. Last time I looked the 70s stands on the western apron were still very much operational.

Given what's happened in aviation due to the pandemic and the impact on finances, is there any timescale when work on the TP may resume? There were comments, weren't there, that some initial work on Pier 2 would shortly be underway?

[HOVIS]

I see the apron regularly and the airport is NOT permanently full for days on end. Yes, there are plenty of parked-up aircraft, but that is not the same thing as 'full'. If the airport were actually "full" as you say, it would be necessary to hold each inbound flight until a departing aircraft vacates a stand for it, wouldn't it? That is clearly not required, as the airport is not "full". Some (vacant) stands may indeed be set aside for an incoming flight, but not all of them. And not all day - a 'splash-and-dash' could certainly be accommodated in the middle of the day. Most diverted flights don't require contact stands anyway. And that is why a dynamic diversion policy should apply. The alternative reflects the lamentable "do not disturb" mentality which Manchester Airport highlighted to great effect when challenging the Department of Transport all those years ago.

Not every diversion can be accepted. We all recognise that. But some certainly can. I strongly suspect that those aforementioned Jet2's could have been accommodated. And what about smaller aircraft such as Citations and Learjets? A catch-all blanket no-divs notam prevents them from enquiring about access by default also.

A dynamic diversion policy allows for aircraft which genuinely cannot be accommodated to be turned away. But those which can be accommodated can be accepted. That is a good thing, though the "not my problem" brigade clearly need some convincing. Almost all other major airports operate a dynamic diversions policy without issue. But perhaps this is another example of the "Manchester way" alone being right beyond question, and every other major airport being incompetent without realising it.



Yes, on a regular basis. That means not permanently. Which is why a dynamic policy should apply. Scope to use discretion is a good thing in a successful business.

May I ask how this 'dynamic policy' conjures up a bunch of loaders, security, catering, refuellers, cleaners, engineers etc at short notice? Do you think there are lots of standby staff sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring at any hour? Even if, and it's a big if, there are any stands available.

Oh and by the way, I have personally witnessed several wide bodies sitting on the taxiway recently waiting for a contact stand to be cleared either because a flight is late departing or a tow team is struggling to get the aircraft pushed back because the (caterers, cleaners, engineers etc) are busy on board so the aircraft can't be moved or even the classic waiting for an overstretched dispatcher to drop what they're doing on the other two flights they're sorting out to come and take the Air bridge off!
These are very real day to day issues that those of us onsight witness everyday, not what a keyboard wannabe airport manager who thinks they have all the answers because they use the airport twice a week. The view from the departure lounge/window seat is very narrow and cannot see the bigger picture.

[MANFOD]

Navpi, perhaps you saw those pictures on another forum of a B777 and A330 on the apron at LPL just before Christmas and idly wondered, like me, whether they could have been at MAN instead. I notice there are 2 more A330s due there today. LPL must consider it worthwhile extra business.

I take Hovis's points on board about staffing constraints, but I'm still waiting for a satisfactory explanation of why it's Manchester alone that adopts this blanket policy of no diversions (except emergencies) over extended periods. I agree with Ozzy that there is an air of arrogance about it and doing things the 'Manchester Way', a sentiment that has also been expressed on here regarding security processes.

[SWBKCB]

Navpi, perhaps you saw those pictures on another forum of a B777 and A330 on the apron at LPL just before Christmas and idly wondered, like me, whether they could have been at MAN instead. I notice there are 2 more A330s due there today. LPL must consider it worthwhile extra business.


Was it not mentioned on another thread that the LPL contract was dropped from BHX? I think we need to stop thinking of these as MAN, BOH, LPL or BHX decisions. I would expect that in these ad hoc (particulalrly bulk loading) cases there are independent operators getting the business which the airport provides the basic facilites for.

[OzzyOzBorn]

May I ask how this 'dynamic policy' conjures up a bunch of loaders, security, catering, refuellers, cleaners, engineers etc at short notice?

Erm ... The same way it works at almost every other major airport? BHX (citing one example) regularly accepts diversion traffic on an opportunity basis. Do they use a magic wand to enable this?

Even if, and it's a big if, there are any stands available.

There are many hours each day when MAN has plenty of vacant stand availability. It is at these times that ad-hoc supplementary traffic could be accepted on a discretionary basis, eg. for a 'splash and dash'. And there are plenty of occasions when space could be found for an executive jet. They don't require main apron stands. When the airport is genuinely full to capacity, a dynamic policy does allow for diversion requests to be refused.

Do you think there are lots of standby staff sitting at home waiting for the phone to ring at any hour?

I think that operators such as self-handling Jet2 know that they have sufficient of their own staff available to handle the B738 which they're asking to divert in. Why refuse this based on a crystal ball reading two weeks ahead of the event? And I think that there are times of day when other agencies have rostered staff on site who are not otherwise committed 100% of the time. As for people at the end of the phone, it is just possible that afew (not all) might appreciate the offer of overtime. Maybe try it? Folks have Christmas expenses to pay off, and heating bills are going up.

I have personally witnessed several wide bodies sitting on the taxiway recently waiting for a contact stand to be cleared

Yep. Me too. This is a particular issue when long-haul flights land upto an hour ahead of schedule before the first wave has departed. And, as you know, a number of the long-haul operators require a specific stand for company operational reasons - they can't take just any one which happens to be free. But this is not an H24 phenomenon. And even when an A330 has to wait, that doesn't mean that there is no space for an unrelated B738 elsewhere on the apron. Each aircraft has different requirements. Then, of course, following the departure of the first wave, there are a number of hours when MAN does have ample stand availability. Its a dynamic situation, which is why a dynamic diversion policy makes sense as a solution.

a keyboard wannabe airport manager who thinks they have all the answers because they use the airport twice a week.

Deary me. Once the personal insults start flying, I tend to think I must be cutting through in a debate. But you assume too much. I have around 25 years of shiftworking experience at MAN on my CV. In case you're wondering, I'm the good looking one!

Yes, looks like Oz let both of us out!

[BHX5DME]

Was it not mentioned on another thread that the LPL contract was dropped from BHX? I think we need to stop thinking of these as MAN, BOH, LPL or BHX decisions. I would expect that in these ad hoc (particulalrly bulk loading) cases there are independent operators getting the business which the airport provides the basic facilites for.

BHX still having very regular freighters from China, two the same day last week !

[ATNotts]

BHX still having very regular freighters from China, two the same day last week !

I don't know about LPL but BHX seems to benefit from a dedicated local cargo handling agent with a team of motivated staff. If MAN is relying on a large corporate agent for cargo handling, where the management is quick to make demands but slow to get their hands dirty on the "shop floor" enthusiasm possibly wanes.

[SWBKCB]

I don't know about LPL but BHX seems to benefit from a dedicated local cargo handling agent with a team of motivated staff.

Finally...

[BHX5DME]

Finally...
Many of who are also local aviation enthusiasts too who relish these freighters.

[OzzyOzBorn]

Mr Cornish / Ms Smart

Please note: "BHX seems to benefit from a dedicated local cargo handling agent with a team of motivated staff."

Now there's an item for your New Year 'To Do' list. Please ensure they have access to Hi-Lo equipment too!

[SWBKCB]

Mr Cornish / Ms Smart

Please note: "BHX seems to benefit from a dedicated local cargo handling agent with a team of motivated staff."

Now there's an item for your New Year 'To Do' list. Please ensure they have access to Hi-Lo equipment too!

Also "Please ensure they have a semi-autonomous area of the airport in which they can operate their business without impacting on the core operation (and park their Hi-Lo). A steady stream of freight only flights to keep them going so they can handle the occasional eye-catching big charters would also be handy. Ta!"

[42psi]

My understanding is the intention of the NOTAM is to advise operators not to use MAN as a flight plan alternate.

MAN has continued to accept diversions on the day where resources allow - it has continued to always accept emergency diversions.

There are very real stand shortages at peak times and throughout 24/7 there are Resource shortages across all departments/service partners.

There is a regular check of both stand, MAG , handling agent resources etc and the airport community is updated on this.

The staff in place each day are generally making a huge effort across companies/departments to support just the planned operation.

When considering (for example) a "splash & go" diversion it really won't work if the fueller makes clear it hasn't got the resources to fuel before the crew go out of hours.

[BACsuperVC10]

Well done Liverpool, I hope their Cargo business comtinues to grow, its a good boost for them. The Managment there have done a good job turning the Nordwinds aircraft around quickly. They appear to be happy with the servixe so far received .

[Skipness One Foxtrot]

But you assume too much. I have around 25 years of shiftworking experience at MAN
Come on Shed, time to amend SYD to MAN 😉 on the old profile.
Let's cut to the chase, senior management have a lot on their plate, a cost benefit- analysis seems to have shown that they can only keep so many plates spinning and so something had to give. I haven't seen their numbers but ad-hoc freight is peripheral to their core operating model. EDI did the same when the GAT was closed and business aviation was actively discouraged, that was fixed over time. With Omicron testing threatening closures as so many are infected (and otherwise OK), there's simply not any contingency in the whole economy, why would MAN be excempt? Airports are barely getting BAU done due to staff shortages and isolation, it's not ideal but surely it's clear why they've done this.
This is a battle for better days, not mid winter pandemic days.

Have they cocked things up? Dropped the ball? I think so. Will ad-hoc freight and diversions make fixing things easier in today's Omicron case obsessed trading environment? Sadly not.

[Curious Pax]

It is at these times that ad-hoc supplementary traffic could be accepted on a discretionary basis, eg. for a 'splash and dash'. !

So many points to come back on, but just to pick out the splash and dash one. It’s been a few years since I worked at MAN operationally, but at the time (and I doubt it’s changed in any meaningful way) diversions were always at the bottom of the pecking order for resources, with planned pax flights at the top. Thus a captain in the hold choosing MAN (for example) might think he’s on a splash and dash, but the reality is that after touchdown he may need to hold for a remote stand, then wait for a fueller to be free, then maybe wait for toilet servicing (may have just come non stop from the Far East), a bit of extra catering perhaps, and then at last a tug for pushback. Drag some of that out, and the crew may go out of hours, and before long a 45 minute refuel has turned into a 3 hour or more stay. Thus it is simplistic to suggest that an hour’s availability on a remote stand would allow a few diversions, as any ramp planner worth their while would be mad to assume a splash and dash would have a good chance of a quick turn round.

Sure things may go according to plan, but as soon as they don’t (and the very act of diversion is a change from the original plan) then the ripple effect can end up costing a lot of money to the handlers in particular. The tightness of handlers’ margins is such that the risk of incurring penalties for not meeting the requirements of their regular customers will often outweigh the benefits of a few pounds for handling a diversion. And in the current climate with staff absences due to COVID, let alone the previous wafer thin staffing levels, that risk can only be higher.

[Suzeman]

Come on Shed, time to amend SYD to MAN 😉 on the old profile.

Absolutely - rumbled that several months ago.:ok:

But you assume too much. I have around 25 years of shiftworking experience at MAN

No doubt as part of a handling agent or perhaps airfield ops or terminal management?

The focus that Manchester had on itself for about 40 years from 1960-2000 was diluted as soon as MAG was formed and even further diluted when some of the shareholding was sold off to investment companies. When it was Manchester on its own, there was a lot of civic pride in the place and many decisions taken at that time, particularly on infrastructure, were taken with a view to the long term future and quite possibly would not stack up nowadays. Business cases were much more rudimentary in those days but risks were taken (yes by the local council) which provided the foundation of what the place is today.

Manchester's voice was well respected in the worldwide airports community and eventually in Whitehall. There was a concensus of local politicians of all colours that the Airport was an important factor in the North West economy. The place was highly successful and staff were buzzing and prepared to go the extra mile. It was a relatively small place and relationships between the teams from the different organisations that made the place tick were pretty good - there were always disagreements of course but solutions to most were hammered out and worked quite well.

With the advent of the low cost carriers things started to change. Manchester was perceived as a high cost airport by then and I was told as much by a large airline owner personally when I met him at a meeting. With changes in management and much more of a focus on costs, attitudes changed, relationships became strained and the pride in the job started to disappear.

I'll take my rose tinted spectacles off now...

The airport business environment nowadays is light years apart from what it was even 15 years ago. It's so sad to see all the reports of "no can do" nowadays rather than the positive attitudes of the past.

I suspect that none of the appeals to Mr Cornish or Ms Smart on here will cut any ice, however well argued and, assuming someone at MAN is monitoring this site, they will probably not be passed on. If you send the comments to them direct, you might get a reply? The opinions of people on a specialist internet forum about how to run the business don't really count - none of us can see the total picture that the Board are looking at.

[OzzyOzBorn]

To all who commented on diversions: keep in mind that risks and challenges apply wherever the aircraft diverts to. There is rarely a stress-free option in the mix.

I suspect that none of the appeals to Mr Cornish or Ms Smart on here will cut any ice

I agree with you Suzeman. I'm under no illusions about that. But if we give up even trying, we're no better than the rest of the "not our problem" contingent.

[Suzeman]

T
I agree with you Suzeman. I'm under no illusions about that. But if we give up even trying, we're no better than the rest of the "not our problem" contingent.

So have you tried to put your arguments direct to one of the MAG/MAN Management team then?

[roverman]

Oh boy, diversions and ad hoc cargo again. This one will never go away, it seems.
I think Skipness 1F came closest in his assessment of the situation. I was part of the MAN Ops team for many years up to 2020. The airport runs a remarkably tight ship in terms of the ATMs/annual passenger throughout from what is really a rather small and certainly a very awkwardly laid out site. As Suzeman points out, the business ethos changed away from local pride etc over the years as MAG (a national group of airports) emerged. The small revenues gained from cargo and diversions don't outweigh the logistical challenges such traffic presents, and in the cost-benefit analysis there's a good chance that that revenue can still be captured via another MAG airport better able to accept it. Believe me, the logisitics puzzle of stand allocation at MAN is is a headache. Some very skilled and experienced people still juggle the plan day by day to make it work. It's easy to look out at any time and see vacant stands ("what's the problem?") but those vacant stands are like the spaces on a solitaire board - if one of them becomes occupied a fraction longer than expected then the whole plan falls over and cascades 12 or 24 hours ahead, making multiple stand changes necessary. And that is often the nature of cargo traffic, especially ad hoc - these flights book slots and then don't operate in accordance because the cargo has been delayed on the roads etc. Diversions by their nature don't operate to a schedule, and once they're on the ground they can stay there as crews go out of hours and so forth. Over the past 3 or 4 years it is MAN that has taken the brunt of the UK airline collapses - Monarch, Thomas Cook and FlyBe - plus the TUi 737 MAX grounding. These events have left MAN with all sorts of airframes lying around the apron and taxiways, for months in some cases. On a recent visit I noted 2 x Virgin A332s in long-term storage sitting on prime T2 stands. MAN cannot be a storage airfield and also accept diversions and ad hoc cargo, there's simply not the space. I think the management are doing their best to keep regular customers happy with the real estate they have. Building more is expensive.

[Navpi]

Oh boy, diversions and ad hoc cargo again. This one will never go away, it seems.
I think Skipness 1F came closest in his assessment of the situation. I was part of the MAN Ops team for many years up to 2020. The airport runs a remarkably tight ship in terms of the ATMs/annual passenger throughout from what is really a rather small and certainly a very awkwardly laid out site. As Suzeman points out, the business ethos changed away from local pride etc over the years as MAG (a national group of airports) emerged. The small revenues gained from cargo and diversions don't outweigh the logistical challenges such traffic presents, and in the cost-benefit analysis there's a good chance that that revenue can still be captured via another MAG airport better able to accept it. Believe me, the logisitics puzzle of stand allocation at MAN is is a headache. Some very skilled and experienced people still juggle the plan day by day to make it work. It's easy to look out at any time and see vacant stands ("what's the problem?") but those vacant stands are like the spaces on a solitaire board - if one of them becomes occupied a fraction longer than expected then the whole plan falls over and cascades 12 or 24 hours ahead, making multiple stand changes necessary. And that is often the nature of cargo traffic, especially ad hoc - these flights book slots and then don't operate in accordance because the cargo has been delayed on the roads etc. Diversions by their nature don't operate to a schedule, and once they're on the ground they can stay there as crews go out of hours and so forth. Over the past 3 or 4 years it is MAN that has taken the brunt of the UK airline collapses - Monarch, Thomas Cook and FlyBe - plus the TUi 737 MAX grounding. These events have left MAN with all sorts of airframes lying around the apron and taxiways, for months in some cases. On a recent visit I noted 2 x Virgin A332s in long-term storage sitting on prime T2 stands. MAN cannot be a storage airfield and also accept diversions and ad hoc cargo, there's simply not the space. I think the management are doing their best to keep regular customers happy with the real estate they have. Building more is expensive.

Welcome to the discussion Roverman, Suzeman and the artist formerly know as S1E, all sensible thoughts are welcome good or bad.

With respect to Rovermans comments I respectfully disagree we seem to have collective amnesia in respect of the 2 miles of tarmac lying idle which stretches out to Mobberley and towards Jodrell bank, by all mean lets get the excuses in now, but I'll wager if the CEO of Bournemouth was running Manchester they would be utilising every available metre of that runway in some capacity or another.

Quick quiz , how many aircraft did Bournemouth find space for during lockdown, it was a billion pounds worth,
ker ..ching !

And whilst there might be an abscence of civic pride there is surely a prerogative from our current CEO to add to their CV ?

We used to have thee best ops team and thee best cargo management team in the country, their input is sorely missed. Its a shame they don't offer consultancy to the current team who appear somewhat light on their feet.

[HOVIS]

Quick quiz , how many aircraft did Bournemouth find space for during lockdown it was a billion pounds worth,
ker ..ching !

To be fair, the main base is just up the road along with their maintenance teams. Those aircraft needed fettling while in storage.

[HKGBOY]

I’m not sure I’d want MAN to handle anymore aircraft. They can’t handle the half full ones they have now.
The pax experience is abysmal. Departing T1 pre Christmas- the PIDs not updating check in information, means you have to hunt the desk,all the open food outlets were rammed full with nowhere to sit, yet swathes of empty tables & chairs were roped off around the closed units.
Coming back domestic you are dumped into T3 to a non functioning baggage belt with a blaring siren for half an hour. Then you have to trudge over to T1 with luggage to be picked up, & charged £5 for that privilege.Those unfamiliar with the layout appear lost.
Departing T2 pre New Year 45 minutes to clear security (SLA is 15).
that’s all aside from the non working skylink walkways- that they have no plans to re-instate.
The pax experience in T1/T3 is grim - there are next to no staff & those you encounter are bereft of any hint of caring.
The management appear to be way behind the curve on everything.
Those that have decided to fly during these challenging times are treated with disdain.
From my very recent experiences I’d say MAGs inability to provide for their current customers means the chances of providing resources for new cargo or diversions are pretty close to zero.

[MANFOD]

I imagine Ozzy, roverman and Suzeman have at least 75 years of experience between them in various capacities at MAN, so their views are always worth reading and taking on board. Interesting that 3 key elements mentioned that have affected the ethos & attitudes at the airport, and among the partner agencies, are the advent of lo-cost carriers with the squeeze on costs, the change in share ownership and the fact that MAN is simply part of a larger UK group rather than a stand-alone 'jewel in the crown' for the region.

Reading those comments and the pressure on parking stands, I do wonder what management's vision and ambition now is in terms of creating extra space in the medium to long term subject to the airport's land boundaries. While it's true we've seen some expansion from Jet2, easyjet and Ryanair in the years preceding the pandemic, the loss of Monarch, TCX and flybe has meant a significant reduction of their based a/c, even allowing for the fact that half of TCX and part of MON would be long haul aircraft arriving in the morning and not occupying stands overnight.

[SWBKCB]

Was just reading this MAN related story on the MEN website - I think you've missed another key component from your list, and that's the growth of out-sourcing, and the corresponding diluting of ownership and responsibility.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ba-missing-baggage-manchester-airport-22626876

[lfc84]

I've been through T3 recently and in the baggage claim area it was deserted apart from the inbound passengers and there was dozens of unattended bags that someone could have picked from and walked away with

[MANFOD]

Was just reading this MAN related story on the MEN website - I think you've missed another key component from your list, and that's the growth of out-sourcing, and the corresponding diluting of ownership and responsibility.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/ba-missing-baggage-manchester-airport-22626876
Fair point about out-sourcing. That particular story highlights the issues well, although of course the damage to the luggage and cases would almost certainly have occurred at origin or Heathrow. Did the M.E.N. make that clear - as usual there were some ignorant comments after the article?

[SWBKCB]

No it doesn't - a MAN respresentative trots the 'nowt to do with us, gov' line while BA say "We apologise unreservedly to customers" and "It’s clear that our service and communications fell short on this occasion and we’re taking the necessary steps with our third party handlers and couriers to ensure we avoid a similar situation in future" after fobbing the guy off to a string of contractors. Pretty sure he paid his money to BA. Ah well, lessons will be learnt...

But as stated, it's not about this specific issue its the "cost of everything, value of nothing approach" which leads to the lack of accountability and decline in service. And its not just "pay peanuts, get monkeys" either - I've worked on teams when the pay was crap and we got ran ragged, but you knew what you were doing and why, and didn't want to let people down. You got satisfaction from an ontime departure and felt crap at a delay.

[Curious Pax]

Rule 101 for an outsourcer is getting payment for everything as per the contract, and charging extra (and at a premium) for anything above and beyond.

Having been outsourced in the past, I know from first hand experience that former colleagues used to you going the extra mile when we were all on the same side, don’t take it well when your new boss in the outsourcing company actively prevents you from doing so without extra payment agreed in advance.

Another reason why the ‘pulling out the stops’ behaviour of the 70s argument advanced above is rarely relevant to the real world of 21st century business.

[inOban]

You can outsource a service. You can't outsource the responsibility of ensuring that the service is being delivered. Someone either from BA or HAL should have noticed that no luggage had been loaded.

[roverman]

Welcome to the discussion Roverman, Suzeman and the artist formerly know as S1E, all sensible thoughts are welcome good or bad.

With respect to Rovermans comments I respectfully disagree we seem to have collective amnesia in respect of the 2 miles of tarmac lying idle which stretches out to Mobberley and towards Jodrell bank, by all mean lets get the excuses in now, but I'll wager if the CEO of Bournemouth was running Manchester they would be utilising every available metre of that runway in some capacity or another.

Quick quiz , how many aircraft did Bournemouth find space for during lockdown, it was a billion pounds worth,
ker ..ching !

And whilst there might be an abscence of civic pride there is surely a prerogative from our current CEO to add to their CV ?

We used to have thee best ops team and thee best cargo management team in the country, their input is sorely missed. Its a shame they don't offer consultancy to the current team who appear somewhat light on their feet.

I can't be certain but I suspect that Runway 2 has been withdrawn from use as an asset in the medium term (Financial Year 21/22) to extract a considerable reduction in business rates. This would prevent use for aircraft parking and the saving will be calculated to outweigh any lost revenues.

[OzzyOzBorn]

A financial incentive to leave a runway idle. That's all we need. Maybe MAG might be tempted to shut the other one too, then nobody will face the inconvenience of doing any work!

[chaps1954]

What is the point of having 2 runways in use when traffic does not require it, at one point there were less than 50 movements a day when traffic requires
it it will reopen which I think is slated nor summer season 2022. It can be used if needed ie maitenance or an emergency same as Heathrow did.

[HOVIS]

You got satisfaction from an ontime departure and felt crap at a delay.

That's all very well but it doesn't put food on the table or pay the rent does it.

[AndrewH52]

A financial incentive to leave a runway idle. That's all we need. Maybe MAG might be tempted to shut the other one too, then nobody will face the inconvenience of doing any work!

What an utterly disrespectful thing to say. You may have a beef with some of the management team at MAG, but don’t tar everyone there with the same brush.

[SWBKCB]

No - but that wasn't my point. Sh*t pay doesn't necessarily mean sh*t service like has been implied. It's more complex than that. Just like paying more doesn't mean you'll get better results.Helps, though.

[Navpi]

I can't be certain but I suspect that Runway 2 has been withdrawn from use as an asset in the medium term (Financial Year 21/22) to extract a considerable reduction in business rates. This would prevent use for aircraft parking and the saving will be calculated to outweigh any lost revenues.

The mist is clearing Roveman.

Many airports in the UK created what i "assume" were revenue opportunities by parking aircraft on every available piece of tarmac during lockdown , except of course you know who.

At the time the excuse was wait for it, "oil dripping on the tarmac and causing contamination, "hang on, we are not talking, B707s, DC8s and Coronados", damn those " leaky old 787s and A380s", in terms of an excuse that did seem something of a stretch, maybe a reduction in rates is more plausible ? although quite why other airports didn't take that route is open to question.

MAN must have been able to somehow decapitate RW2 from the airport footprint more easily than those who grasped the opportunity that prevailed.

I can only think there was some head scratching from some of MAN customers that they were not allowed to park here and were forced to send aircraft to European airports.

[OzzyOzBorn]

What is the point of having 2 runways in use when traffic does not require it

Not sure who this reply is intended for, but nobody on here has argued for re-instatement of twin runway ops until traffic justifies this. Navpi's post queried why the mothballed runway was not put to use for long-term aircraft parking during the prolonged lockdown periods, but that is an academic question at this stage. And Roverman has supplied a very viable answer.

My own concern would be that if there is a financial incentive to keep a runway closed (beyond direct operational savings), this could delay reinstatement beyond the optimum point of reopening. But hopefully that issue won't arise.

What an utterly disrespectful thing to say. You may have a beef with some of the management team at MAG

I think that most here are quite capable of spotting a tongue-in-cheek remark. Perhaps I should have inserted a row of grinning emojis for the benefit of the professionally offended, but that does not seem to be the PPRuNe way. And NO, I have no "beef" with the MAG management team. I actually know afew and have a great deal of respect for them as individuals. But that doesn't mean I won't challenge specific corporate policies which I feel are not in the best interests of the airport operation. It is a very healthy thing for companies to be challenged to reassess certain assumptions where better outcomes might result. A good manager will always welcome constructive criticism.

[MAN777]

Re contamination of RW2

[QUOTE]At the time the excuse was wait for it, "oil dripping on the tarmac and causing contamination, "hang on, we are not talking, B707s, DC8s and Coronados", damn those " leaky old 787s and A380s", in terms of an excuse that did seem something of a stretch, maybe a reduction in rates is more plausible ? although quite why other airports didn't take that route is open to question./QUOTE]

The majority of RW 2 is Asphalt/Bitumen which as you probably know can soften and degrade if it comes into contact with solvents (Jet A1, Hydraulic fluid, Oil.)

I think keeping RW2 expensive surface in pristine condition is a good call.