Infrastructure, Developments and Construction

[User001]

Not much, but, utilities being laid to the west of T2 ready to start the bigger build come Autumn.

More to just show that things are happening.

 

[User001]

Great photo showing a small snapshot of the long haul variety at MAN. Going to Miss this view when the piers are built. Photo by someone called Cameron Gaines.

 

[Comet]

You may have to put up with Pier C for a bit longer as the latest information seems to suggest that the 1974 part of it will remain and connected to the new Pier 4

 

[User001]

It's definately going according to the latest meeting my colleagues attended.

The addendum people are seeing that makes it look like Pier C is staying is an amended connection to pier B from the end of pier 4. Rather than a long 'sweep', they are using this new format to add some offices/toilets and utility areas.

 

[Comet]

It's definately going according to the latest meeting my colleagues attended.

The addendum people are seeing that makes it look like Pier C is staying is an amended connection to pier B from the end of pier 4. Rather than a long 'sweep', they are using this new format to add some offices/toilets and utility areas.

That may be the case. It looked like part was staying and someone on another forum said as much for the 1974 bit. I am worried that the change will noticeably reduce the stands available.

 

[Dobbo]

In part the new piers need to allow future expansion on a phased basis over the existing T1/3 site.

I doubt that would be constructed to the same quality or design as it is likely to be for locos but the space next to the runway should be better utilised...

 

[User001]

The stand loss looked to be 4 stands.

I'm trying to clarify though, as the last meeting said it was staying, but the one before that, merely 3 weeks before, said under no uncertain terms was the C pier staying, as it's the crux of the movement restriction issue.

Given the final plans are done, and the short change of time, that things would not have altered that drastically.

The reason for the rumours of C-Pier staying is that the 3D model being sent around on a community jolly in a glass case shows part of C-Pier remaining. However, on asking 3 weeks ago, we were told that 'under no uncertain terms is C Pier staying. This mock up merely shows the new T2 model and how it sits in the current site, with the C-Pier stub remaining to give a sense of familiarity on the size and scale of the refurbishment.

I will of course, try and get to the bottom of the confusion.

 

[Dobbo]

I don't think the piers require planning permission so can be moved at reasonably short notice.

 

[David_itl]

I don't think this article has mentioned in relation to the pre-clearance. It is from January but the comment is worth debating:

"Mike Stewart... the newly-appointed director of business development at the taxpayer-owned Ayrshire base, said." "There is no airport in the UK that's got it and none have applied. I've seen recent news reports about London and Manchester potentially applying for it, but I think for both it would be extremely difficult to achieve.

"If you've ever been through Shannon to the States, it's a dedicated gate that's handed over to American immigration so I would see that as something quite difficult for Heathrow and Manchester. You would have to schedule US flights from those gates constantly - it would really restrict them, I think."

http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/..._flights_to_London_would_help_revive_airport/
Done a mix and match for the services combining June 2016 and June 2017 - the MAN website shows both VS and DL operating to JFK in summer 2017 so have taken the VS one as the correct one.

Looks to be roughly 6 to 8 gates needed for the transatlantic if after arrival they remote park though would that even be possible/wanted? Would that finger pier be practically dedicated to just long-haul with a few gates being freed up for non-based units operating in from Europe

 

[User001]

The TCX to MCO should be 9 weekly looking at the skeds.

As for Mike Stewart's comments.

Clearly has no clue, as the MAN TP is hugely public knowledge. He must know about the piers plans which segregate the US flights perfectly.

Also, I can assure that MAN has applied for US pre clearance, and is currently in the approval process. It's likely to be the only UK point this side of 2025 to get the facility.

As to why he wants pre clearance at PIK, I'm not sure given it has zero pax flights to the USA (or most of Europe for that matter) and the number of biz Jets would not even begin to justify such huge expenditure.

Maybe he should do more research before such nonsense comments.

 

[Dobbo]

I think that one pier should do the trick and that it is currently planned for one of the piers to be dedicated to US preclearence.

This is on the assumption that the stands shown on the renders can each hold an A330/B77W sized aircraft. That would mean each pier can hold 10 of these. This is only based on looking at the renders so make of it what you will.

The others (I think - and I am reasonably sure it is higher up in this chain) are earmarked for:

1 - the MEB 3/4;
2 - European full service carriers; and
3 - The rest.

Not very scientific, but reasonably logical. It would allow the airlines lounges to be constructed into the pier which would be convenient for premium passengers but not ideal for flexibility.

I am also not clear whether certain Tompson, Thomas Cook and Monarch flights will go from. Monarch probably T3, but Tompson and Thomas Cook might be at risk of splitting between terminals.

 

[User001]

Took a very rare trip to the airport yesterday with the little one.

Lots and lots of building work around the periphery of the airfield.

1- north of the airfield, just beyond staff west and where the holiday inn/premier inn are, seemed to be a fairly large construction site, I'm guessing it's more car parking as seems to be a general trend at the moment.

2- logistics hub. In between the (HUGE!) Amazon warehouse and the DHL hub, 'alpha' is currently being constructed, and again is a large facility. Apparently this will house multiple companies in sectioned off parts of the warehouse

3- seems some work was going on around the Voyager building, presumably in preparation for the first 'airport city' building work

4- Didn't get to see if the new car park near the AVP was finished, but couldn't see any obvious construction.

5- Utility work around T2 continues in earnest.

Spades in the ground for the actual 'big build' seems to be October according to the contractor I spoke to, it's certainly what they are aiming towards anyway.

 

[Dobbo]

That's good to hear. I wonder whether the phasing of the extension will continue from West to East, and what the timeline is. MAN may need to have significant extra capacity by the peak 2018 for sure.

Any news on the lounges planned?

 

[ethanegcc]

MAN needs extra capacity at peak times in Terminal 2 as it is. I have seen every gate (even remote stands) right to the edge of the perimeter full. I also saw an on time VS 744 wait 20mins after landing for a remote stand - not even an airbridge whereas at other times of the day it seems fairly empty.

It would be wise to time the likes of Air China (if it is still going to happen) more like Oman Air and Qatar so T2 can get used more in the evenings and not contribute even further to the business of the early morning rush.

 

[Yawner]

Ethanegcc...where to begin lol. The airport management is far more aware of what capacity is needed than some bloke turning up to take photos of planes. Airports have a known stand capacity which they can't exceed in the same way as they have a runway capacity. The airport have never turned away operators based on the airport being full. Nor will they ever.

It goes unnoticed on these boards the small improvements that occur ongoing eg stand realignments and the way transatlantics are now staggered through the morning and into the afternoon when not too long ago all departures were between 9am and 11am.

If needed the viewing park could very quickly be concreted. It's not needed and that's why it isn't. The Virgin flight will have either been early or requested a particular stand. In rare situations there could be a problem with the departure aircraft blocking a stand because of some issue or other. Airbridges are paid for so often sit unused while aircraft operate remotely.

There are a lot of posts about the airport being full at peak periods. This is exactly as it should be and shows the capacity is being well managed. Some people seem to think a full airport is a problem???? If the economy turns, which history shows it will, the apron will look a very baron place.

Another recurrent gripe I read in various places is that the terminal project is only going to deliver 1 extra stand. This of course is not true. It will be completed in phases. The first phase plans were released, although subject to change, and this will deliver 1 extra stand. On completion of the whole project there will be plenty more. Or at least the scope to provide them if needed in the economic circumstances prevailing.

 

[Dobbo]

Another recurrent gripe I read in various places is that the terminal project is only going to deliver 1 extra stand. This of course is not true. It will be completed in phases. The first phase plans were released, although subject to change, and this will deliver 1 extra stand. On completion of the whole project there will be plenty more. Or at least the scope to provide them if needed in the economic circumstances prevailing.

Yawner, completely agree. When the TP is completed the airfield operating area is significantly larger than at present.

I hope the circumstances are there to see the need for all 4 piers.

 

[Jerry]

Ethanegcc...where to begin lol. The airport management is far more aware of what capacity is needed than some bloke turning up to take photos of planes. Airports have a known stand capacity which they can't exceed in the same way as they have a runway capacity. The airport have never turned away operators based on the airport being full. Nor will they ever.

It goes unnoticed on these boards the small improvements that occur ongoing eg stand realignments and the way transatlantics are now staggered through the morning and into the afternoon when not too long ago all departures were between 9am and 11am.

If needed the viewing park could very quickly be concreted. It's not needed and that's why it isn't. The Virgin flight will have either been early or requested a particular stand. In rare situations there could be a problem with the departure aircraft blocking a stand because of some issue or other. Airbridges are paid for so often sit unused while aircraft operate remotely.

There are a lot of posts about the airport being full at peak periods. This is exactly as it should be and shows the capacity is being well managed. Some people seem to think a full airport is a problem???? If the economy turns, which history shows it will, the apron will look a very baron place.

Another recurrent gripe I read in various places is that the terminal project is only going to deliver 1 extra stand. This of course is not true. It will be completed in phases. The first phase plans were released, although subject to change, and this will deliver 1 extra stand. On completion of the whole project there will be plenty more. Or at least the scope to provide them if needed in the economic circumstances prevailing.

From what i've seen at other airports full gates and stands are a good thing! Can't understand anyone complaining about that! Airports tend to manage things like clockwork and as soon as some gates and stands are vacated another aircraft is on it. There are a lot of regional airports around the UK who would love there stands and gates to be full all the time!

 

[EGCC_MAN]

I don't think anybody is complaining about healthy stand occupancy. However, there are important issues which the airport needs to plan around. It is rumoured that Ryanair had hoped to be upto 10 based units at MAN by this point but that T3 has only been able to accommodate 8 so far. Proposals for Vueling to establish a MAN base are also affected by stand congestion at T3 in particular. So whilst the airport is doing a great job managing things as best they can with the infrastructure they've got, provision of stands for future expansion by based carriers is an issue which has to be kept high on the planning agenda.

 

[Aceshigh]

Clearly this could have serious repercussions re Airport City and of course our fledgling Chinese flights.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37016120

Not sure Air China will be going anywhere soon.

It's fair to say from a Manchester perspective the new cabinet is making a complete bugger of it. ...

 

[Dobbo]

Reading this again I am intrigued by the height of the new building and piers.

With multi story piers, a vast amount (lounges, waiting areas, baggage and airfield machinery) can be taken outside of the main extension. In the case of the USPBC pier, it could contain a vast amount of facilities.

These do not require planning permission for some reason...