Manchester: Infrastructure, Developments and Construction

[Dobbo]

Jetbridge on the left looks quite right, suppose it would look odd snaking round in the render.

If hoped the piers would be bigger, so they contain more space for lounges and other facilities.

Interesting the USPC is in a middle pier, is the plan to desegregate it in the late afternoon still? If that has changed I wonder if it might indicate an expectation of an increased volume of later running services.

 

[User001]

At the moment, it's still very much in the planning stage for the pier to be de-segregated after USPC finishes for the day, as doing so means the area has to be security swept each morning to be handed back to the US as 'their land'.

So, they need to work out how to do this without major problems, so, it could well be that initially, the pier will be redundant from 5pm until midnight (pier won't be used later than that, night stoppers cannot use pier due to said security sweep needed, based aircraft wouldn't be able to get away in time for the hand back).

There is also the question, as Dobbo has rightly put out, is the pier Tom g to be desperately needed for those 7 hours, to make the staffing to sweep the area afterwards worth while.

 

[Dobbo]

I'd like to think that US services will grow in a similar fashion to how they have grown in DUB, such that we will see a second wave to the US later on in the evening.

I guess a huge amount of this depends on which airlines want to use the facility, whether they are based or non based, where they fly to, and whether they are transit or non transit. The greater the spread of services, the more likely they are to operate round the clock.

Still, if USPC uses one of the four piers (assuming all four are constructed) that is still a relatively small part of the capacity of the airport.

 

[Dobbo]

Particularly if Pier C remains in situ!

 

[Scottie Dog]

Is it just me, but there does not seem to be sufficient space at end of the piers for two opposite direction taxiway.

I appreciate that renders are just artists impressions of a plan, but they should also provide a true representation of the finished product.

 

[Aviador]

Is it just me, but there does not seem to be sufficient space at end of the piers for two opposite direction taxiway.

I appreciate that renders are just artists impressions of a plan, but they should also provide a true representation of the finished product.

Is that the only render we've got to go on, is there any others available?

 

[Comet]

User

It was said by someone a while back that the the build cost had been reduced whether this is true I have no idea.

It has also been said by others who clearly have knowledge of what is going on that what was shown in earlier renders was out of date and things have changed.

I am perhaps like others becoming concerned that it is 18 months since the Airport announced the TP and since then nothing further is being revealed and no start date.

The shot above does I believe match more or less the fly through on the TP website so is probably out of date further it still shows a complete pier C and no parallel taxiway.

However they can't change the external design much ( I am not talking piers here) as they would need to get further planning approvals.

We are as said 18 months on the airport is getting busier and really they need to settle on the design and start building asap.

 

[Dobbo]

Is it just me, but there does not seem to be sufficient space at end of the piers for two opposite direction taxiway.

SD - I think the final taxiway makes use of the space currently occupied (including in that render) by the aircraft stands opposite the cargo area.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Don't read too much into that picture. I suspect that the intention is to convey the latest concept for T2 (TP). For the purposes of scale and orientation, they super-impose the T2 image onto the backdrop of the airport as it looks today. Hence we shouldn't infer from this that dual taxiway plans have been dropped or that T1 will be left unchanged in reality.

Incidentally, I note negativity on here concerning the external appearance of the piers on T2. Out of interest, what were your expectations on this? I expected lots of glass and steel which is what we seem to have here. The inside layout and space is what really matters to passengers, isn't it? Not having a go here ... just genuinely interested in how others expected the piers to look?

 

[Dobbo]

Speaking for myself, I thought they would be a bit larger. The key aspect is the inside of this, and the new/refurbished terminal space. It needs to be able to perform the functions required to place MAN for the next 20-30 years...

 

[EGCC_MAN]

Following two recent trips of my own and some welcome intel from Land23R, it appears that MAN currently has 10 e.gates operational in T1 with 5 in each of T2 and T3. With the public becoming increasingly accustomed to using these, they are making a real positive contribution to the reduction in inbound immigration queues which used to attract adverse media publicity for MAN on a regular basis.

I'm unaware of the costings to install or operate each individual e.gate, or whether it is MAG or UK Border who bears the cost of providing them. But I certainly hope that there are a lot more cubicles on the way soon. A quick doubling would be a great start. This innovation seems to be a relatively inexpensive way to significantly enhance customer impressions of arriving at MAN. The return on investment implied by this appears very high to me. More e.gates, please ... ASAP! If anybody here can provide an insight into the e.gate costings at MAN that would be really helpful.

Just another thought on the theme of electronic solutions to immigration processing, as this becomes more widely accepted at major airports globally. If the notorious larger US gateway airports were to adopt similar technology on a large scale to process US passport holders and those using 'regular visitor' documentation, the remaining staffed booths would become progressively much less pressurised. Immigration queueing-times would reduce substantially. This could negate the case for having MAN USPC (at considerable expense) in less than a decade from now. Given recent rumours that USPC is potentially destined for one of T2's middle piers (so presumably not the first one to be built), it will be interesting to note how the business case for USPC stacks up as technology significantly reduces average immigration queueing times in the US itself between now and (say) five years out?

 

[User001]

Incidentally, I note negativity on here concerning the external appearance of the piers on T2. Out of interest, what were your expectations on this? I expected lots of glass and steel which is what we seem to have here.

EGCC,

I expected steel and glass, and I did expect basic design (when I say basic, I mean we were not going to get a Seoul Incheon, TBIT or heck, even a San Jose (CA).

But what I did want was a little bit more 'integration' and 'sculpture'.

What I mean by that was, at the very start of the airline consultations, it was said that the new T2 was going to be the end of the 'bolt on culture' and that internally and externally, the airport was going to be 'something to be proud of'.

Now, I know on a construction project this size, £850million isn't going to get you the absalute top of the range building, but, my issues are this:

-if, and it is an if, these are close to the final designs of the new terminal, then the 'old/new' mix at the landside area goes against everything the project was supposed to combat, which is bolting the old and new, making it look mishmash.

The old part of T2 will be gutted and remodelled, so, if they are doing the inside, the outside should be considered too, to give that 'clean sweep' and 'wow factor'. Hell, even a reclad, which is easy enough to do, could hide the old part and make it look like a continuous new development.

-my next point is the piers. Firstly, they don't look tall enough to house what they need to house. It needs to be at least 3 storeys, and given the internals are supposed to be light and airy, then the third floor needs to be double aspect to prevent claustraphobia.

Then there is the fact it is a flat roof. Large scale flat roofs do not bode well in the UK. And with the amount of 'water collection buckets' dotted around the airport, you would have thought MAN would have learnt from that!

Now, it wouldn't cost the earth to put either a curved or apex roof on the piers. BHX has an apex, LHR has an arch and even the low cost airport that is DSA has a wavy roof, making it both better to handle water and look visually impressive. If DSA can do it then I do not believe for one second MAG couldn't.

There is also the fact Pier B and part of pier C (by far the worst part of the airport) are staying, I just think that the project isn't even at the build stage yet and already corners are being cut. They are already backtracking on what the build was initially about, and like I say, when a spade hasn't even been lifted yet, let alone put in the ground, it's worrying.

Aside from this doom and gloom, I do think the interiors look great. If they come off they way they have been rendered, then the airport will look great.

Obviously we all want the best for the airport, and I'm excited that this is happening, but at the end of the day, I am realistic and know money and means are finite, but I can't help the fact certain aspects make me think 'yeesh!'.

 

[User001]

As for USPC, here is why it's still important.

US global entry is not as straight forward as its being made out.

-There are only 3-5 booths at most airports, with little appitite to increase those numbers from what I am hearing. That coupled with the fact there will be some 'slow' users, if I was on an aircraft with 350 people who all want to use global entry, then I would probably just ask to get straight back on the plane again!

-there still needs to be human verification, you can't just use the Machine and waltz out of the airport, you print off a slip and that gets checked at a customs post, which will also have non global entry users queueing at that post.

-not everyone will be elibpgable for global entry, it's actually a very selective process.

-All that combined with if you have a connecting flight, if you pre cleared in Manchester, then there is no queueing whatsoever, not machines, no hassle, now worries, just off the plane, waltz to the next gate and off you go again. It also means you can bring down your connection time. At the moment, JFK advises 2 hours to connect from intl to domestic. That can be (if you are brave) be brought down to 40 minutes with pre clearance.

So, no, I really don't see USPC being obsolete any time soon.

 

[Dobbo]

In terms of USPC, it makes use of otherwise "dead" time that is spent shopping, eating or drinking. Assuming you can get passengers through quickly and effectively, it is a no brainer.

With the design of the TP, value engineering is rife in many projects across the UK. If you compare the June 2015 renders with those in early 2016 and the planning documents, they are night and day. You would expect a degree of architectural uniformity.

However, the key aspect os for the buildings to be functional, with a wide spread of lounge, eating, drinking and shopping facilities. That would be a quantum leap over what is there now.

 

[EGCC_MAN]

So, no, I really don't see USPC being obsolete any time soon.

I don't see it being obsolete either. But like the change from check-in procedures ten years ago to the equivalent which we experience today it could be playing a far less critical role. Technology is already arguably better at confirming identity than an officer glancing at people from inside a glass booth. It will only improve, and individuals identified as higher risk (a small minority) will be directed to the staffed lanes anyway. Given that the US would likely not consider the UK amongst its highest risk departure points, would USPC still be worth the cost if only (say) 20% of US-bound passengers actually derive meaningful benefit from it? It is likely that the cost of supporting the USPC operation will be reflected in fares. Note that I'm playing Devil's advocate here ... I'd like to see MAN host USPC if possible ... but there are considerations which indicate that we shouldn't take its introduction for granted. Especially if the timescale is slipping which a planned location in a pier designated for mid-project construction would imply?

Some of those US inhibiting factors which you describe sound like working practices limitations and union job protection measures. A decade is plenty of time for these to be eroded if significant cost savings are on the table.

In terms of USPC, it makes use of otherwise "dead" time that is spent shopping, eating or drinking. Assuming you can get passengers through quickly and effectively, it is a no brainer.

Your sentiments make complete sense from the point of view of a passenger. The problem is that shopping, eating and drinking are exactly what an airport wants its customers to be doing whilst within the terminal complex. That's where alot of their income is derived, particularly in this era of no-frills.

 

[Dobbo]

Your sentiments make complete sense from the point of view of a passenger. The problem is that shopping, eating and drinking are exactly what an airport wants its customers to be doing whilst within the terminal complex. That's where alot of their income is derived, particularly in this era of no-frills.

Point very much taken - hence why I think there is a need to be able to move passengers through quickly.

If passengers cannit move quickly the benefit of the time saving is lost; and the airport with the USPC facility looses out in shopping time (of course long haul passengers areess likely to be on "locos". If the piers are large enough they might have some retail and food facilities embedded in them. If they are too small it might be an opportunity lost.

Id like to see some renders of the retail area, it looks fairly large and airy on, but that is one of the internals I've not seen.

 

[Aceshigh]

I must agree with EGCC. Housing USPC in the middle pier must mean it's 5 years off minimum?

 

[User001]

If the landside areas looked like this all the way along it would be a great entrance!

 

[Scottie Dog]

Excellent news. Let's get digging as soon as possible.

I'll accept that as a Christmas present. thank you.

 

[Land23R]

Excellent. Thanks for picking up on that.

Do we know the estimated completion time for package one?