- Moderator
- #381
I was actually thinking of the area behind the old West Pier where the multistorey will go. I thought you were referring to this as the "compound".
Don't worry about any reply if you understand my point.
Manchester: Infrastructure, Developments and Construction
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Use this prefix for new threads for Manchester Airport
I was actually thinking of the area behind the old West Pier where the multistorey will go. I thought you were referring to this as the "compound".
Don't worry about any reply if you understand my point.
Any more information you can give us?
And if that gets American Airlines out of T3 and over to T2 a bit quicker as well what a bonus. Could open things up for a bit more Ryanair expansion? Helpful also for MAN to have another competitive advantage on US services if Scottish airports reduce or abolish APD as appears likely.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
The AA flights don't impede on Ryanair expansion anyway, first wave is usually gone by the time the 3 AA flights start arriving"
What would help T3 is if KLM/Air France move over to another terminal. That would free up 2 overnight gates, and those 2 carriers have no requirement to be in T3, there's only the AF/BE partnership for CDG but I'm sure they could manage that with the airside T1/T3 link.
As for pre clearance, it's still looking to be 2019, due to many factors such as building work time, implementation lead in times and such. However, I have heard a faint rumour that there may be an 'interim measure' while the build continues.....
What would help T3 is if KLM/Air France move over to another terminal. That would free up 2 overnight gates, and those 2 carriers have no requirement to be in T3, there's only the AF/BE partnership for CDG but I'm sure they could manage that with the airside T1/T3 link.
As for pre clearance, it's still looking to be 2019, due to many factors such as building work time, implementation lead in times and such. However, I have heard a faint rumour that there may be an 'interim measure' while the build continues.....
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
I'd say improving the transfer experience - particularly from BE to the variety of carriers they currently codeshare with - is becoming an increasingly important aspect of the overall TP project.
That, with USPC, should provide the shot in the arm needed to take US services to a new level, and feed the continued growth to a variety of Far East and hopefully African and Indian subcontinent routes.
I'm sure we'll see full service and long haul carriers move to T2 when complete. I'm less sure about BEs intentions, which is where the link will come in. Hopefully it can be maintained when T1 is knocked down.
One things for sure, if the current rate of growth continues, the site will be unrecognisable in 20 years.
That, with USPC, should provide the shot in the arm needed to take US services to a new level, and feed the continued growth to a variety of Far East and hopefully African and Indian subcontinent routes.
I'm sure we'll see full service and long haul carriers move to T2 when complete. I'm less sure about BEs intentions, which is where the link will come in. Hopefully it can be maintained when T1 is knocked down.
One things for sure, if the current rate of growth continues, the site will be unrecognisable in 20 years.
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
View attachment 5540 View attachment 5541 View attachment 5542 View attachment 5543
Some images of the hotel projects in the pipeline and some other structures on "enterprise way".
Some images of the hotel projects in the pipeline and some other structures on "enterprise way".
This bit caught my eye in that M.E.N. article:
"Today work will begin - on what is expected to be the busiest day on record for the airport.
Some 150,000 flights are expected to depart from Manchester as the schools break up and this year’s summer getaway kicks off."
That will keep ATC on their toes!!??
Re the piers, it does seem strange that pier '2' is the one not confirmed for the reason User mentions.
I understand that is subject to passenger growth and demand, and also to getting agreement with airlines for the funding of it. Without that pier, it reduces the ratio of contact stands from what was initially highlighted as being a big plus.
It seems there has been a change of mind about Pier 4 relative to C Pier's continuation. I think the original idea was that pier C would be 2 sided except for the satellite, but the new Pier 4 would only have aircraft stands to the west to allow for vehicle/equipment access. That seems to have been reversed so that Pier 4 is 2 sided but on Pier C, only stands 21/23/25/27 will be available.
Charlie Cornish just now on North West News spoke of the investment enabling the airport to grow to 40-45m passengers with a lot more destinations. Wasn't 55m originally talked about or was that in a different context?
Just watched the video. Not too bad in parts in my view to be fair. Hope there will be enough travelators though and they will be switched on. Could be some long walks involved otherwise. Great to see all those Border Control desks manned! hmmm.
"Today work will begin - on what is expected to be the busiest day on record for the airport.
Some 150,000 flights are expected to depart from Manchester as the schools break up and this year’s summer getaway kicks off."
That will keep ATC on their toes!!??
Re the piers, it does seem strange that pier '2' is the one not confirmed for the reason User mentions.
I understand that is subject to passenger growth and demand, and also to getting agreement with airlines for the funding of it. Without that pier, it reduces the ratio of contact stands from what was initially highlighted as being a big plus.
It seems there has been a change of mind about Pier 4 relative to C Pier's continuation. I think the original idea was that pier C would be 2 sided except for the satellite, but the new Pier 4 would only have aircraft stands to the west to allow for vehicle/equipment access. That seems to have been reversed so that Pier 4 is 2 sided but on Pier C, only stands 21/23/25/27 will be available.
Charlie Cornish just now on North West News spoke of the investment enabling the airport to grow to 40-45m passengers with a lot more destinations. Wasn't 55m originally talked about or was that in a different context?
Just watched the video. Not too bad in parts in my view to be fair. Hope there will be enough travelators though and they will be switched on. Could be some long walks involved otherwise. Great to see all those Border Control desks manned! hmmm.
Last edited:
Comet
Active Member
- Feb 25, 2010
- 180
- 28
Couldn't agree more. A huge let down. The original renders from 2 years back promised something much better.
I think we we were being optimistic hoping for an announcement about US Pre-Clearance.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/operations/preclearance
Under the expansion section, it just mentions being in negotiations with several countries.
Stockholm was agreed apparently in Nov'16. Last update was 22 June so fairly recent.
https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/operations/preclearance
Under the expansion section, it just mentions being in negotiations with several countries.
Stockholm was agreed apparently in Nov'16. Last update was 22 June so fairly recent.
OK. Quite afew underwhelmed glass half-empty reactions on here so far. Perhaps we need to be more open to the glass half-full perspective. Always the glass half-full type, me. Everyone says so! ;-)
The air of disappointment arises from the initial aspirational videos placed in the public domain a couple of years back. They were drawn up by MAG with the best of intentions. However, since then, those aspirations have been placed in front of experienced professional consultants from the construction industry along with the approved budget proposal of 850M to 1Bn Pounds. In the real world, GBP1Bn buys substantially less than MAG executives originally hoped. So it is unrealistic to think in terms of what we could have had. It transpires that those projections were never going to be achievable within budget. We haven't lost anything. We're just gaining slightly less than we hoped courtesy of TP phase one.
Now lets reset the clock to today and examine where we are at. The young girl on the video now mentions that this development is costing over one billion pounds. Now that could be artistic licence, or it could mean that the approved budget for the TP has been increased.
What will the public see when they view this new video later today? Well, we must remember that 99.9% of them are not avid avgeeks in the way that contributors here are. So most of them won't remember those original aspirational videos at all. Now consider this: with fresh eyes, compare the Manchester Airport which we know and love today with that depicted in the new video. The new proposals are waaaay better in so many respects. That is what most people will see. We few on here express disappointment because we're hung up on artists' impressions from two years back which were never realistic within budget. Be honest, if today's video was the first we'd ever seen on the subject of the TP we'd all be ecstatic. The facility at MAN is going to be better - one billion pounds better - at the end of it. Almost certainly with more improvements to follow.
My takeaway is that the new video pinpoints the stage that the TP will have reached when the allocated one billion budget is exhausted. But the images shown do not rule out the possibility of further investment to follow. The remaining pier can still be added, Pier C can still be remodelled / replaced. That will just have to happen under a future phase of budgeting.
The new video is understandably focused on the customer experience within the terminal. What I would like to know is whether the less-visible investment airside remains substantively unchanged. The dualing of taxiways, modification of taxying flows for aircraft. Will there be a bottleneck for aircraft passing the end of retained Pier C? Is there provision (perhaps outside the scope of the TP, but running in parallel) to add further aircraft parking stands elsewhere on the airport campus? No doubt more details of all this will emerge later. Hopefully, news of USPDC will eventually follow too. I was also hoping for an announcement on this today, but at least it hasn't been ruled out.
Anyway, keep smiling. The fully-audited and costed version of the TP will still deliver a facility far better than what MAN has been able to offer up to now.
The air of disappointment arises from the initial aspirational videos placed in the public domain a couple of years back. They were drawn up by MAG with the best of intentions. However, since then, those aspirations have been placed in front of experienced professional consultants from the construction industry along with the approved budget proposal of 850M to 1Bn Pounds. In the real world, GBP1Bn buys substantially less than MAG executives originally hoped. So it is unrealistic to think in terms of what we could have had. It transpires that those projections were never going to be achievable within budget. We haven't lost anything. We're just gaining slightly less than we hoped courtesy of TP phase one.
Now lets reset the clock to today and examine where we are at. The young girl on the video now mentions that this development is costing over one billion pounds. Now that could be artistic licence, or it could mean that the approved budget for the TP has been increased.
What will the public see when they view this new video later today? Well, we must remember that 99.9% of them are not avid avgeeks in the way that contributors here are. So most of them won't remember those original aspirational videos at all. Now consider this: with fresh eyes, compare the Manchester Airport which we know and love today with that depicted in the new video. The new proposals are waaaay better in so many respects. That is what most people will see. We few on here express disappointment because we're hung up on artists' impressions from two years back which were never realistic within budget. Be honest, if today's video was the first we'd ever seen on the subject of the TP we'd all be ecstatic. The facility at MAN is going to be better - one billion pounds better - at the end of it. Almost certainly with more improvements to follow.
My takeaway is that the new video pinpoints the stage that the TP will have reached when the allocated one billion budget is exhausted. But the images shown do not rule out the possibility of further investment to follow. The remaining pier can still be added, Pier C can still be remodelled / replaced. That will just have to happen under a future phase of budgeting.
The new video is understandably focused on the customer experience within the terminal. What I would like to know is whether the less-visible investment airside remains substantively unchanged. The dualing of taxiways, modification of taxying flows for aircraft. Will there be a bottleneck for aircraft passing the end of retained Pier C? Is there provision (perhaps outside the scope of the TP, but running in parallel) to add further aircraft parking stands elsewhere on the airport campus? No doubt more details of all this will emerge later. Hopefully, news of USPDC will eventually follow too. I was also hoping for an announcement on this today, but at least it hasn't been ruled out.
Anyway, keep smiling. The fully-audited and costed version of the TP will still deliver a facility far better than what MAN has been able to offer up to now.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
A small contribution from Government of say £250m would have made a massive difference would it not?
Heathrow getting £18bn on 75m pax
Manchester getting nothing on a third of that figure 30m pax
Seems odd ?
I can't believe Ayling Grayling grayling has the brass neck cheek to present a National Aviation Strategy but offer nothing to Manchester whilst fawning around Heathrow with as much cash as they require !!!
Heathrow getting £18bn on 75m pax
Manchester getting nothing on a third of that figure 30m pax
Seems odd ?
I can't believe Ayling Grayling grayling has the brass neck cheek to present a National Aviation Strategy but offer nothing to Manchester whilst fawning around Heathrow with as much cash as they require !!!
Fair points EGCC_MAN. I actually thought it was a better video than the one a few months ago that did seem to show quite a lot of narrow corridors and low ceilings. However, I thought the choice of voice-over was poor. Not being sexist, but I feel it needs a more authoritative voice, not necessarily male. (There are a few good female newsreaders on Radio4). The girl who does the safety announcement on Thomson flights may be alright for holiday trips to Palma but this is meant to be a show piece to the aviation and business world, and the public of a £1bn. investment. No doubt some will find this comment pedantic but IMO it should be as professional as possible and in that respect it falls short.
TheLocalYokel
Honorary Member Of Forums4airports
- Jan 14, 2009
- 15,694
- 343
- IMPORTANT!! To reduce spam, we request that you make a post soon after completing your registration. We request you keep your account active by posting regularly. Inactive accounts risk being deleted.
- Yes
- Admin
- #398
I suspect that they used the voice of what sounds like a 12-year old girl to narrate the video as she represents the future as does the envisaged MAN. I agree that the commentary sounds a bit naff and I think that it actually detracts from what is being put across.
I'm getting a little confused as to the timescale for completion of the TP. When the project was first announced (2014?), it was certainly stated to be 10 years. But when did the clock start? The BBC report today also referred to 10 years, while a few days ago I heard mention of 6 years before it is finished. Anyone got any firmer understanding?
ps for those of us who are older generation, timescales take on added significance!!
ps for those of us who are older generation, timescales take on added significance!!
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Ok, so, I've had all day to view the videos, look at the images and read what's being proposed? Now, this post is going to be a culmination of what's new and what we have known about for a long time, some of it may seem unrealistic but these are my thoughts and wanted to share.
Firstly, and right from the outset, I feel this TP has been a wasted oppertunity, and the approach has been completely wrong from the outset.
Now, my preffered area of full redevelopment is on the current T1/T3 site, and even encroaching on the airport city development.
The reasons being:
-It's the original airport site, it's closest to the runway so reduces taxi times. The TP on T2 means that to get from the end of 23R to the furthest new remote stand on the current long stay car park will take about 4 1/2 minutes without stopping. Then consider any stand built on the current T1/T3 site could be as little as 1 minute, to a maximum of about 3. The latter may not sound a lot, but in an age where low cost airlines heavily utilise the aircraft, this 1 1/2 minutes soon add up.
-all the infrastructure is near the T1 site. Buses, trains, trams, police station, even the utilities hub is outside T1. This also means that people arriving by train or bus now face the prospect of a good 10 minute walk to the main terminal body, and that's if the travelators work (I know I jest but seriously, MAN has a major issue with faulty travelators, in my 250+ visits to MAN in recent memory, I have NEVER seen the full set working on the skylink, and I mean NEVER. I will come back to travelators later).
-lastly, while the demolition and rebuild would have been a logistical nightmare, I believe this area had the best scope for space. It's currently a lot of open ground and car parks, with some hotels. All could have been easily re-accommodated, perhaps some even closer to the terminals with potential direct access.
My plan for what could have been on the T1/T3 site is something similar to Berlin Brandenburg. A 'horseshoe' type shape with aircraft parking down the flanks, and then 2 satellites where T2 is (I could draw a crude map via MS paint if anyone wants to see what I mean). This design could have had all the infrastructure in the middle of the horseshoe such as bus/train (the train station could even be pushed underground so that pax arrive directly into the terminal), hotels, car parks etc.
But, anyway, they went for an expanded T2 option. My thoughts on the designs in the next post, right now, children to take care of....
Firstly, and right from the outset, I feel this TP has been a wasted oppertunity, and the approach has been completely wrong from the outset.
Now, my preffered area of full redevelopment is on the current T1/T3 site, and even encroaching on the airport city development.
The reasons being:
-It's the original airport site, it's closest to the runway so reduces taxi times. The TP on T2 means that to get from the end of 23R to the furthest new remote stand on the current long stay car park will take about 4 1/2 minutes without stopping. Then consider any stand built on the current T1/T3 site could be as little as 1 minute, to a maximum of about 3. The latter may not sound a lot, but in an age where low cost airlines heavily utilise the aircraft, this 1 1/2 minutes soon add up.
-all the infrastructure is near the T1 site. Buses, trains, trams, police station, even the utilities hub is outside T1. This also means that people arriving by train or bus now face the prospect of a good 10 minute walk to the main terminal body, and that's if the travelators work (I know I jest but seriously, MAN has a major issue with faulty travelators, in my 250+ visits to MAN in recent memory, I have NEVER seen the full set working on the skylink, and I mean NEVER. I will come back to travelators later).
-lastly, while the demolition and rebuild would have been a logistical nightmare, I believe this area had the best scope for space. It's currently a lot of open ground and car parks, with some hotels. All could have been easily re-accommodated, perhaps some even closer to the terminals with potential direct access.
My plan for what could have been on the T1/T3 site is something similar to Berlin Brandenburg. A 'horseshoe' type shape with aircraft parking down the flanks, and then 2 satellites where T2 is (I could draw a crude map via MS paint if anyone wants to see what I mean). This design could have had all the infrastructure in the middle of the horseshoe such as bus/train (the train station could even be pushed underground so that pax arrive directly into the terminal), hotels, car parks etc.
But, anyway, they went for an expanded T2 option. My thoughts on the designs in the next post, right now, children to take care of....
Remove Advertisements
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.
Trending Hashtags
-
#EasyJetWeight: 2
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 2
-
#supportLBAWeight: 1
-
#aviationWeight: 1
-
#planespottingWeight: 1