Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Manchester runway shortened for car parking

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Manchester runway shortened for car parking

Old 24th Oct 2017, 13:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Manchester runway shortened for car parking

The full idiocy is masked by a bland NOTAM but Manchester Airport UK has effectively reduced the available length of Rwy 23R by converting taxiway J to a car park! They will no doubt argue the runway is fully available... but only by backtracking which would cause major delays. So in summary, MAN Airport plc is increasing noise pollution, fuel burn, engine wear -just to boost its parking revenue. You really couldn't make it up!!
ShotOne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 14:17
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Extreme
Posts: 315
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Car park or aeroplane park?

Maybe taking a leaf out of YMML and YSSY's management book who make most money from non-aviation services.
Shot Nancy is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 14:50
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Old news, this venture is almost over now, it's been like this for months. It hasn't caused any operational issues. As for increasing fuel burn, why is that?
Johnny F@rt Pants is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 15:05
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn, pollution and engine maintenance cost and larger noise footprint. "Hasn't caused operational issues" :not if someone else is paying the bills and you don't care about the noise

Last edited by ShotOne; 24th Oct 2017 at 15:19.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 15:08
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Do not kill me but lower thrust settings are the ones burning more fuel, if I recall correctly my ATPL ground school years.
iggy is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 17:25
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are you seriously putting forward that shortening runways reduces fuel burn?? Let's get those cones out everywhere then!

Overhaul costs for big fan engines are certainly not "negligible". Although clearly they're less than negligible to MAPLC which gets all the car parking revenue but pays none of the resultant costs
ShotOne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 17:52
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: England
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taxiway Juliet holding area for 23R had already been closed for a significant period for surface repairs before the closure period was extended for the temporary car park. It'll be back to normal in a couple of weeks.
Musket90 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 19:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: At home.
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Car Parks

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

Sad but true.
str12 is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 19:33
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: PA
Age: 58
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn, pollution and engine maintenance cost and larger noise footprint
Actually, the others are correct, lower thrust setting is lower temp and increased pollutants. This is why idle thrust creating less pollutants on ARR is a myth. (and why one does not see it advertised as a benefit for RNP-AR)

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

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

the best scenario is to jump up quick and level off getting clean...more initial noise, but smaller exposure footprint, with better fuel burn (less pollutants)
underfire is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 19:33
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: EGKK
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MAN only needs one runway and LGW controllers
Major Cong is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 20:38
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If you've invented an engine whose emissions decrease with increasing power, get it patented quick. I'll happily invest.

However you stack this, there's no upside for anyone other than MAPLC. This is a (thankfully short-term) cash grab by the airport paid for by the airlines and local residents.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 20:57
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You need to do a bit of calculus on the flight profiles to get the total emissions from point A until point B.

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

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

The airlines will be quite thankful that most environmentalists don't really get that all calculus does is let you work out the area under a wiggly line in a graph.
tescoapp is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 21:07
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Qwerty
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just turn 23L into a permanent car park as it's not really that good as a second runway.
Council Van is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 21:44
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Either the back of a sim, or wherever Crewing send me.
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
"Why is that?" Every take off must be performed at a higher power setting. Therefore increasing fuel burn
Actually, to burn less fuel you would take off at full thrust, which would mean that you get to the higher cruise levels quicker, however we don't do that as the engine wear is greater.
Johnny F@rt Pants is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 22:34
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A shorter take-off roll will mostly require a higher flap setting which increases fuel burn. But I agree, the fuel is small beer compared to the increased engine wear, particularly since rwy length doesn't affect climb to higher cruise levels, just to acceleration alt

Last edited by ShotOne; 24th Oct 2017 at 23:45.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 24th Oct 2017, 22:49
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 442
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Major Cong Manchester has some fine controllers thanks but the departures off 23s isn`t as good as Gatwick as most have to do a right turn before going left round Mobberley/Knutsford
chaps1954 is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2017, 00:19
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: UK
Age: 58
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
However you stack this, there's no upside for anyone other than MAPLC. This is a (thankfully short-term) cash grab by the airport paid for by the airlines and local residents.
Oh I dunno, the MROs who look after the engines will be happy.
TURIN is offline  
Old 25th Oct 2017, 06:47
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: mids
Age: 58
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe they can use the cash from the parking to get rid of the hump?

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.