On the contrary, that's precisely what we're talking about in this instance.

Well yes, obviously many airports have fewer gates than stands. But I'd suggest that it's far more common for a flight that's blocking a gate while awaiting its slot to push, taxy and hold remotely rather than towing a planeload of passengers on a scenic tour of the airport.

Well it's being done all over the place... Germany, UK, France, Italy... Sitting with engines running for sometimes 30-45 minutes waiting for slot time makes little sense.

And no, it was not about moving from "one stand to another" it was about moving from a gate to a parking position.

From the article:

DavereidUK
 

Your knowlage of what is now standard practice at airports all over Europe seems a little thin.

Why put expensive cycles on the turbines when you can move the aircraft for a gallon or two of diesel oil ?

Schipol has a better idea, they leave regional aircraft parked on stands and bus the passengers out to them from gates 60-something. Bigger aircraft load at the gates.

Amazed no one has pointed out that the plane didn't collapse onto the tow truck, as stated in the title.

That's what many airports do today actually. Problem is that they are still running out of gates...

Capot's post #2 is pure art.
Within the broad narrative about predictions comes the prediction.
A story within a story.
Very D.M.Thomas.

Your knowledge of what constitutes an engine cycle seems a little thin. :O

Neither procedure consumes more cycles than the other.

At Manchester, both Push & Park and Push & Hold are SOPs, and it's the length of the delay that determines which is used.

CTOT needs to be later than STD+35 before Push & Park is allowed, if it's less than that you will be expected to taxy to a remote hold to await your slot.

A lot of rubbish being spouted here :ok:

Rumours are one of the sheer pins failed, tug driver attempted to slow down by using the brakes which resulted in the remaining sheer pins going, and tow bar head becoming detatched - Subsequently allowing the aircraft to run into the tug.

787 can start it's engines with the APU like any other aircraft can

Possibly the OP encountered a 787 with the APU u/s, in which case you obviously can't use an air cart for engine start and therefore need external electrical power ?

A similar incident occurred at MAN a few years ago when a bmi regional crew decided to do a cross bleed start on a Emb 145 whilst being pushed back from stand in the cul de sac. Ended up with said aircraft on top of said tug cab!

There are two push and park procedures I have seen used.
1.Normal pushback. Tug disconnects and aircraft taxis to a remote location shuts down engines and waits. Restarts and taxis out when required.
2. Tug tows aircraft to a remote area and disconnects.

1. Requires two engine starts and use of fuel. 2. Doesn't.

I remember doing it with OneElevens at MAN so it's not new.

and the difference nowadays is?

Shear pins go all the time not necessarily down to tug driver speed or driving standards. Could be a dodgy ramp with a slight incline or deviation, a pin that has just given in due wear and tear or slight mishap on angles. The fact it went isn't to much a concern it's more the question of was it noticed and stopped or did the aircraft roll forward due to an unlevel ramp surface.

There is a history of this at LAX.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTLA1zYdMxo

And Noise Limitation too.

Deadstick126....That's computer graphics magic, not a real event. Nice try though!

CV-580, I think you'll find that Deadstick126's post is tongue-in-cheek humour, not an attempt at passing it off as real.