If you scan back through the threads covering the TP initiative both on F4A and other forums, the main takeaway will be the widespread negativity expressed by contributors. They claim that the project cuts too many corners and is being done on the cheap. Too many luxury features they want to see are not there. Features which they want minimised - shopping arcades and the like - are abundant. Aesthetics are not as pleasing as many hoped. There is no 'marble palace' look; no grand wide-open spaces ... every square metre is functional or revenue-enhancing.
Many here will recall that I'm not amongst the critics. The TP cannot be compared with upgrades to airports financed by governments in wealthy states and supported by prestige based flag carriers. The Manchester TP is entirely financed by MAG on commercial terms. And the airport knows its customer base: overwhelmingly price-sensitive leisure-based no frills. Hence the emphasis on providing value-engineered practical facilities which will do an efficient job at the right price. And maximise scope for earnings from revenue streams such as retail, catering, lounges and car parking which will keep fees down for no-frills carriers.
Note too that the TP is phased. Pier 2 is not yet funded. Much-needed work on T1 and T3 is not yet on the drawing board (well not in the public domain, anyway). This will (hopefully) follow in due course, but it does demonstrate that MAG is upgrading with considered caution, not recklessly committing to expenditure beyond its present means. Whilst this approach has attracted the "not good enough" rhetoric with which we are all so familiar, the flip-side is that this will be a cost-controlled facility which will not lumber client carriers with inflated user-charges down the line. Post TP T2 will (hopefully) be pleasant, functional and efficient, but it will not be a marble palace. Passengers who want luxury facilities will pay extra to use them.
Meanwhile, remember that T3 is not included in the scope of the TP. That is the Ryanair and FlyBe base at MAN. Major changes there are years away, and Ryanair and FlyBe as principal users there will no doubt be consulted on future plans for upgrades. I suspect that objections will not come in relation to expanding capacity ... but they would if such plans aspired to marble palace grandeur rather than efficient, functional incremental gate space. I suspect that MAG will keep it simple and stick with the proven formula of attracting revenue from passenger spend rather than from charges levied on the airlines.
Changes at T1 are also many years out, although the aspiration to demolish and incorporate activity into expanded T2 and a remodelled new terminal is no secret. But one thing MAG is very good at is keeping a grip on costs and justifying every penny spent. That's why so many neutrals are upset that MAG are "missing the opportunity" to make a grand architectural statement for the North. But I'm not hearing those complaints from Jet2, EasyJet, Thomas Cook, TUI etc. They know the score. And it means affordable charges for functional state-of-the-art facilities from their perspective.
MAG won't be wasting money on expensive white-elephant initiatives such as a full-length parallel taxiway alongside 23L/05R either. Many neutrals call for this too, but the business case is feeble. The effect on movement capability would be negligible, and the cost of construction very high. These are the type of vanity projects which would result in inflated fees to airlines. MAG has skilfully steered clear of such value-traps so far.
My expectation is that once the current TP reaches an advanced stage of completion, MAG will seek funding to enable seemless progression onto a future phase of redevelopment. This may involve the addition of Pier 2, and / or the demolition and redevelopment of the T1 footprint, perhaps integrating it with a remodelled T3. All that is a matter for speculation down the line, of course. But my bet is that cost-effective functional development will continue to be the blueprint. No grand statement architecture. But expanded value-intensive facilities which lend themselves to efficient low cost turnarounds by the client carriers concerned. Even Mr O' Leary will approve!
