Manchester (MAN) - General Thread

[Land23R]

Just to put some numbers on the extra capacity provided by say a RYR based B738 with 189 seats.
Taking just 20 return flights a week, over a full year would provide over 196,000 seats. Even a seasonal based a/c for 30 weeks would be 113,000 seats.

As EGCC_MAN points out, RYR have been very obliging in using non-based a/c for MAN services but even an extra such flight a day only produces 1/3 of those seats.

Yawner, if you view the apron in the middle of an afternoon, you may well feel there's no shortage of stands. Try taking a look between 05.45 and say 09.00 and you'll probably reach a different conclusion.

But User is right, it's not just parking stands for a/c. At certain times, the terminals - T3 & even T1 - struggle to cope.
Certain airlines such as foreign carriers using a/c from their own bases do help the situation as arrival into MAN can be at less busy times and help to produce growth, but it's those based carriers that can significantly boost capacity, providing of course the demand is there.

It's going to take some creative thinking from MAN over the next few years if pax numbers continue to increase as to how best to accommodate them. "There's no room at the Inn" is not the sort of message the airport will want to send out. But if airlines such as easyjet, Ryanair and Jet 2 were to start putting extra a/c into other competitive UK airports and not MAN, it would be a real cause of concern.

 

[ethanegcc]

The 'Skyteam' terminal as such would be classed as Terminal 2, so maybe KLM/Air France would be better moving over there. The long term aspiration has to be having Flybe and Virgin under one roof but I can't imagine Flybe using Terminal 2. Perhaps an airside connections passage needs to join T3 and T2 together?

 

[Yawner]

Land23R in response to your condescending assertion that I'm unaware of constraints at different times i'd like to reassure you that this obviously isn't the case. The examples I gave prove this if you'd care to reread. For example a 787 sat on the ramp for weeks, the Jet2 hangar plan and the rest of the alternatives I mention are not solely, or in any way, relevant to the quieter periods only, so I fail to see why you would make that accusation. You seem to have the belief that (for example) 100 stands means a maximum of 100 based aircraft.

I'm not saying that there aren't issues to overcome, but there are minds seemingly far more creative and more 'in the know' about future requirements than some panic stricken doom mongers on here. And how many times is the benefit of a based aircraft going to be mentioned as though it's some brand new piece of critical outside the box thinking. The counter argument is that non based aircraft have a massive value or else the airport would just be a wavy mess of massive congestion followed by tumbleweed.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

there are minds seemingly far more creative and more 'in the know' about future requirements than some panic stricken doom mongers on here

OK, so we're just panic stricken doom mongers. We'll consider ourselves told off for being so stupid. But given your obvious superior knowledge on this topic, how about answering my specific question to you reference Ryanair and T3? User001 has given you a head-start, but perhaps you could reassure us that fully-subscribed overnight T3 stands are just a figment of our panic-stricken imaginations?

BTW, nobody has argued that visiting aircraft are unhelpful. Quite the contrary. But based units are really important. Like it or not.

 

[Yawner]

A similarly condescending post from an 'entirely different' member. Just to clear things up User001 hasn't given me a head start on this issue as my original post suggests the very type of things he mentions. To spoon feed the point being made compare what time the earliest and latest based aircraft depart and consider whether all based aircraft need their own stand.

There is also a point I'm reluctant to mention and that is airport strategy. Do they want unshackled growth from predatory carriers? Would an FR base of 30 be entirely new customer driven or would it undermine other carriers who maybe pay for more services? The airport have had a long time to consider what FR want and aren't racing to provide it and far from FR being very accommodating to MAN by providing non based services, the reality is they have been incentivised to do so. Commercial enterprises can be incentivised to do many things. So, again I'm going to implore the 'both' of you to stop thinking so narrowly and to be less contemptuous of other contributors on here.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

be less contemptuous of other contributors on here

Wow! You really take the prize coming out with this! But I'm not going to argue with you on the level of personal insults. If that is your style then that is a problem for you. BTW, why is 'entirely different' so written in your post ... do you actually think that Land23R and myself are the same person?

Now, you clearly have the impression that you are the only knowledgable contributor on here. Well I've got news for you: I know several of the other contributors personally and I know their backgrounds. If you think this forum is a hive of clueless amateurs then you are profoundly mistaken. I've got afew years in the industry to my name as well. Including night-shifts with a panoramic view of the crowded apron at night. So perhaps less of the attitude would be a positive start.

Now then. I have considered the earliest and latest based aircraft STD's for Ryanair (gosh ... I'd never thought to do that!). And here is the issue. The default overspill aircraft parking area - the West Apron - is pretty darned full overnight. I have considered whether these aircraft need their own stand and my answer is that I see no desire from MAG to park them on taxiways instead. Can you offer an alternative solution?

As to MAG's strategy preference regarding their future commercial relationship with RYR, that is a different discussion. No need to be reluctant about mentioning it. It has been discussed in the past by myself and others. But for the purposes of discussing stand availability for based aircraft, Ryanair is just one prominent example which illustrates the issues well. We could substitute other names instead. You have not put forward any material argument to illustrate that the apron has ample vacant stands overnight to accommodate future growth by based carriers. Which are by far the biggest source of growth at MAN.

 

[Yawner]

I have provided some examples. I've referred to early departures blocking in later ones. Also, MAN has shown an appetite to use taxiways during recent football events. Sorry for the repetition maybe you missed it first time?

 

[Land23R]

Yawner, I don't see why you should regard anyone who disagrees with you as condescending.

Your point about the Airport's strategy is a perfectly fair one, but nobody has suggested a Ryanair base could be 30 a/c if stands were available.

If you happen to work at MAN, you will be aware that some Managers at the Airport acknowledge they face challenges regarding space, particularly while the TP is progressing. I doubt they would suggest there is plenty of room but would agree that some creative thinking out of the box will be required. And yes, there is sufficient spread of the early wave of departures to enable a/c to be moved from remote to contact stand. But by then, early arrivals on say T2 are being towed to those remote stands that have been vacated and are replaced by new arrivals for the T2 stands.

I guess the point is there is little flexibility at that early morning peak. It only takes significant delays on departures for arrivals to have to wait for long periods on taxiways until a stand is free and that can cause reactionary delays. This is not to argue that the airport should spend vast amounts of money short term building up a large surplus of stands just in case - indeed land limitations probably prevent that - but I think you would find that most observers would be of the opinion that the T3 situation will have to be addressed at some stage unless there is an economic downturn affecting aviation growth.
Meanwhile, finding a few extra parking spaces for a/c would not go amiss.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

MAN has shown an appetite to use taxiways during recent football events.

OK. So your opinion is that an occasional strategy used by MAG to accommodate flights for a one-off cup final on the continent is the long-term solution to overnight aircraft parking at Manchester Airport. Fair enough. It is an option of sorts. But not one so robust that those who raise objections should be ridiculed in the contemptuous manner characterising your posts today. I can certainly think of a number of difficulties which would arise if taxiways were withdrawn to accommodate aircraft parking on a nightly basis.

I stand by my assertion that MAG would be well-advised to consider additional stand provision at this airport. If you disagree that's fair enough. But it is just your opinion, not due grounds to lash out at anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Yawner]

Some extra spaces would indeed be great. I was just making the point it wouldn't necessarily stifle growth just yet

 

[Scottie Dog]

How many recall the plans to use the 23R holding bay for stands?

The airport got to the stage where stand numbers, signs and apron markings were all in place - and then the plans were scrapped. I don't recall the year, but it must have been around 20 years ago.

Could this be a possible reincarnation?

 

[EGCC_MAN]

We'll have to get rid of those high-yielding parked cars first. <SIGH>.

 

[Aceshigh]

When Singapore has to wait outside the fire station for 25 mins I would suggest

"Houston we "may" have a problem. ..."

This isn't isolated it's daily !

 

[David_itl]

Well if we look at the SQ arrival times..

06-Aug Singapore (SIN) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMA) 9:10 AM Landed 8:38 AM
05-Aug Singapore (SIN) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SME) 9:10 AM Landed 8:49 AM
04-Aug Singapore (SIN) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMH) 9:10 AM Landed 8:59 AM
02-Aug Singapore (SIN) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SME) 9:10 AM Landed 8:36 AM
01-Aug Singapore (SIN) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMG)9:10 AM Landed 8:33 AM

06-Aug Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMA) 10:10 BST Estimated 09:08
05-Aug Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SME) 10:10 BST Landed 09:40
04-Aug Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMH) 10:10 BST Landed 09:27
02-Aug Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SME) 10:10 BST Landed 10:05
01-Aug Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SMG) 10:10 BST Landed 09:32
30-Jul Houston (IAH) Manchester (MAN) A359 (9V-SME) 10:10 BST Landed 09:33

Landing upto 30 or 40 minutes early means I would expect other aircraft to be on "their" stand. Or if aircraft on "thier" stand have encountered a daily then it's a case of wait for it to be cleared. It's hardly MAN's fault!

 

[Dobbo]

Obviously in an ideal world MAN would have more operational flexibility. However, we are where we are, in what is likely to be MAN's busiest ever month with significant constraints due to the IMO long overdue expansion works.

When these are complete, let's hope these complaints can be put behind us for the foreseeable!

In other news, we may get the July numbers out today and we have reason to believe we have passed 27 million passengers on a rolling 12 month total.

 

[Scottie Dog]

Rolling 12 month was over 27m, according to CAA stats produced by Gavin in Pprune, in June but I can't get the right formatting to display the table!

 

[Land23R]

Yes, the provisional CAA stats for June show the rolling 12 months figure as 27,004,438. And that's Terminal pax.
With transits, it would be slightly higher.

 

[ethanegcc]

It will be interesting to see the July statistics as I think User alluded to them, at least anecdotally, being high. Let's see if the SQ trend continues...

 

[Land23R]

Obviously in an ideal world MAN would have more operational flexibility. However, we are where we are, in what is likely to be MAN's busiest ever month with significant constraints due to the IMO long overdue expansion works.

I agree. At that peak morning period, there is often no wriggle-room, so if a long haul flight does arrive early for a contact stand there's a fair chance he will be held on a taxiway, unless the Captain and Ops. are prepared to accept a remote stand if one is available.

 

[Scottie Dog]

Slightly OFF TOPIC but help needed (my apologies to the moderators.)

As some of you know I produce monthly reports based on the CAA passenger data.

My problem is that no matter whether I create an Excel or Word document the formatting goes wrong when I paste to a forum. As a result I have to laboriously type each item using "." separators. Does anyone know how to get the original Excel document to copy correctly?

Please reply directly to me rather than filling these pages!!

Many thanks

Scottie Dog