User - I agree with you that there was (and remains) tremendous opportunity to redevelop the T1/T3 site for the reasons that you state. My hope would be that this will follow on from the T2 TP in turn, preferably sooner rather than later. You make a persuasive case that T1/T3 should have been fast-tracked first, but for me the most important thing is that both elements get sorted as soon as is practicably possible. An infusion of government funding to help make this happen more quickly would be highly desirable. The stretched timescales we see at present are an inevitable consequence of having to finance the whole redevelopment of MAN with privately funded inhouse resources. There are too many elements of desirable redevelopment which would be of clear benefit to the wider NW economy, but which would disadvantage MAG's own bottom-line taken in isolation. So those upgrades face never being advanced under the present system.
Manchester: Infrastructure, Developments and Construction
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Use this prefix for new threads for Manchester Airport
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
I don't know about 'building for the future', but turning part of the taxiway at Juliet/Mike (next to the Airport pub) into a temporary car park is one of the stupidest ideas MAG has had to date!
http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.ns...ULIET+TO+FACILITATE+TEMPORARY+CAR+PARKING.pdf
http://www.magworld.co.uk/magweb.ns...ULIET+TO+FACILITATE+TEMPORARY+CAR+PARKING.pdf
- Moderator
- #403
Crass stupidity!!
In theory it won't be that bad. Runway 2 will be in use most of the time for departures and arrivals into the affected area depending on wind direction. I'm not sure what the agreements are but as passenger numbers rise runway 2 can be used more. Maybe we are at that point?
Obviously, problems may arise if a runway gets blocked or closed for some reason. Fingers crossed.
Obviously, problems may arise if a runway gets blocked or closed for some reason. Fingers crossed.
- Moderator
- #407
A valid point as to how many longhaul departures there are during the lunchtime single operation period that require the full 24R runway length.
- Moderator
- #409
Looking at the OAN file you are quite correct with your times.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
Talking of letdowns.....
Great insight by Brian Groom of the FT who I believe attended the TP launch but was shouted down when "connected infastructure " was mentioned.
Seemingly want straight back to the FT office and filed this....
Grayling is conning us !
One commentary for Charlie Cornish
But a quite different one for Heathrow!
https://www.ft.com/content/522c0f8e-6e0f-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa
Rail improvements the government has previously deemed vital to its Northern Powerhouse plan to tackle the north-south divide may not go ahead, the transport secretary said on Friday. Chris Grayling said the railway between Leeds and Manchester — one of the busiest in the country — is unlikely to be fully electrified, and that he was reviewing a plan to build two platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station to cope with extra trains. He said that instead trains that could switch between electric and diesel power, called bi-mode locomotives, were likely to operate on the Leeds to Manchester route. In 2015 the government made a commitment to electrify the entire Transpennine railway from Liverpool to Newcastle to ensure faster journey times and more capacity, and some of this work is under way. We don’t need to electrify all of every route CHRIS GRAYLING Patrick McLoughlin said while he was transport secretary two years ago that the scheme was “at the heart of our plan to build a Northern Powerhouse”, which focuses on improved rail and road links between northern cities, among other things. But on a visit to Manchester Mr Grayling said: “We don’t need to electrify all of every route. There are places that are built in Victorian times where it is very difficult to put up electric cables. “If there are bits of the Transpennine network that are complicated to do and we have a bi-mode train we can say, ‘Here is a section we can have a diesel’. We will be electrifying Transpennine but we can do it in a smarter way.” Electric trains are more efficient and less polluting than diesel equivalents. But Mr Grayling said the use of bi-mode trains would still cut journey times and improve passenger comfort. He cancelled three electrification projects, including Sheffield to Kettering, this week. Mr Grayling said he had ordered Network Rail, owner of the rail infrastructure, to review plans to build two platforms as part of a £600m “Northern Hub” plan that includes connecting Victoria and Piccadilly stations in Manchester. A new viaduct is being built that will allow services between the two stations and enable trains from towns north of Manchester to run direct to the airport in the south.
Great insight by Brian Groom of the FT who I believe attended the TP launch but was shouted down when "connected infastructure " was mentioned.
Seemingly want straight back to the FT office and filed this....
Grayling is conning us !
One commentary for Charlie Cornish
But a quite different one for Heathrow!
https://www.ft.com/content/522c0f8e-6e0f-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa
Rail improvements the government has previously deemed vital to its Northern Powerhouse plan to tackle the north-south divide may not go ahead, the transport secretary said on Friday. Chris Grayling said the railway between Leeds and Manchester — one of the busiest in the country — is unlikely to be fully electrified, and that he was reviewing a plan to build two platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station to cope with extra trains. He said that instead trains that could switch between electric and diesel power, called bi-mode locomotives, were likely to operate on the Leeds to Manchester route. In 2015 the government made a commitment to electrify the entire Transpennine railway from Liverpool to Newcastle to ensure faster journey times and more capacity, and some of this work is under way. We don’t need to electrify all of every route CHRIS GRAYLING Patrick McLoughlin said while he was transport secretary two years ago that the scheme was “at the heart of our plan to build a Northern Powerhouse”, which focuses on improved rail and road links between northern cities, among other things. But on a visit to Manchester Mr Grayling said: “We don’t need to electrify all of every route. There are places that are built in Victorian times where it is very difficult to put up electric cables. “If there are bits of the Transpennine network that are complicated to do and we have a bi-mode train we can say, ‘Here is a section we can have a diesel’. We will be electrifying Transpennine but we can do it in a smarter way.” Electric trains are more efficient and less polluting than diesel equivalents. But Mr Grayling said the use of bi-mode trains would still cut journey times and improve passenger comfort. He cancelled three electrification projects, including Sheffield to Kettering, this week. Mr Grayling said he had ordered Network Rail, owner of the rail infrastructure, to review plans to build two platforms as part of a £600m “Northern Hub” plan that includes connecting Victoria and Piccadilly stations in Manchester. A new viaduct is being built that will allow services between the two stations and enable trains from towns north of Manchester to run direct to the airport in the south.
Last edited:
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Hi User
I agree the T1/3 site would be the best place to redevelop, but I don't think that was achievable right now. I'd love to see what user has in mind.
However, on the TP being a wasted opportunity. I disagree. Could it have been done better, and could they have found more money? Probably. But I don't think a "blue sky" project is viable at present. Having said that, I'd love to see your horseshoe plan. Can't quite envisage it myself right now!
However, what I do know is that there was no chance of demolishing T1/3 without drastic cut in capacity because T2 was not big enough. I see this phase of the TP as the only realistic solution to prepare the ground for T1/3 redevelopment.
The taxiing time is a fair point. I'd imagine when the site is redeveloped the locos will occupy this part of the campus. I'm sure 23R/09L requires a dual taxiway so the stands will have to move away from the runway and onto the present car park.
Infrastructure - I gather there is a circular loop planned from metrolink covering amongst other things the planned HS2/NPR station which is next to the T2 campus. Drawing together the existing and planned infrastructure is going to be a major challenge for MAN moving forward.
One thing we can all agree on are travelators. They are awful.
I'm going to look at the aviation consultation document. I'll try and summarise if I can. Plainly there is some symbolism in launching at MAN, but unless there is more financial support for MAN (surface access really) then I don't really see it as anything other than intended to support / justify the governments long held view that they want to expand LHR at any cost.
P.S. - turning a taxiway into a car park... are you kidding me?!
I agree the T1/3 site would be the best place to redevelop, but I don't think that was achievable right now. I'd love to see what user has in mind.
However, on the TP being a wasted opportunity. I disagree. Could it have been done better, and could they have found more money? Probably. But I don't think a "blue sky" project is viable at present. Having said that, I'd love to see your horseshoe plan. Can't quite envisage it myself right now!
However, what I do know is that there was no chance of demolishing T1/3 without drastic cut in capacity because T2 was not big enough. I see this phase of the TP as the only realistic solution to prepare the ground for T1/3 redevelopment.
The taxiing time is a fair point. I'd imagine when the site is redeveloped the locos will occupy this part of the campus. I'm sure 23R/09L requires a dual taxiway so the stands will have to move away from the runway and onto the present car park.
Infrastructure - I gather there is a circular loop planned from metrolink covering amongst other things the planned HS2/NPR station which is next to the T2 campus. Drawing together the existing and planned infrastructure is going to be a major challenge for MAN moving forward.
One thing we can all agree on are travelators. They are awful.
I'm going to look at the aviation consultation document. I'll try and summarise if I can. Plainly there is some symbolism in launching at MAN, but unless there is more financial support for MAN (surface access really) then I don't really see it as anything other than intended to support / justify the governments long held view that they want to expand LHR at any cost.
P.S. - turning a taxiway into a car park... are you kidding me?!
Visited the airport this morning and between T1 & T2 and back, 14 of the 20 sections were moving. Par for the course I would say.
2 of the static 6 were U/S with a note of apology re a component problem. How many weeks/months is that for the same 2 sections? Is the equipment so old that they don't make components any more,, or are OTIS, if they are responsible, just inefficient? A bit like cones on the roads with no beggars working on them. The 4 other sections were just static - 1 to T1 from the station and 2 from T2 to the station. My cynical mind thinks of a jobsworth who believes he will get a few brownie points for a bit of energy saving. Suggests he watches some elderly folk after an overnight long haul flight (not disabled) trudging along with cases to the station from T2.
On a brighter note, great to see the airport so busy, but T1 was bursting at the seams in parts with horrendous queues for EY check in. I see the flight didn't get away on time but that may have been for some other reason.
SQ was very busy which by the timing I assume must have been for the Houston flight. Hope they weren't all special offer prices, but at least folk and travel agents etc. know about the service.
The TP can't happen quickly enough in my view, but I do agree that something major needs to happen with T1/T3.
Whether the necessary private funding can be found remains to be seen, but as for Government helping out, a great idea but don't make me laugh. This Transport Secretary looks like being every bit as bad as his predecessor when it comes to the North South divide for infrastructure spending. According to the M.E.N. when asked about the variances in regional spend (and it has to be said the North West fares better than some), he said the figures were distorted because of a huge project like Crossrail. Ha, ha. Well, he'll have to use that one again if/when Crossrail 2 happens.
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Ha!
The figures are always distorted because of Crossrail, or the Olympics, or HS1, or Kings X St Pancras ...
The billions being poured into London would go so much further in northern England. Hopefully we will see that with NPR and the TP tunnel (amongst others).
The figures are always distorted because of Crossrail, or the Olympics, or HS1, or Kings X St Pancras ...
The billions being poured into London would go so much further in northern England. Hopefully we will see that with NPR and the TP tunnel (amongst others).
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
Grayling coming in for masses of criticism from a number Media and Business Leaders for his decison on Northern rail infastructure although the other mob are also a bunch of idiots.
The new chair of the Transport Select Committee is Lilian Greenwood a Labour MP from Nottingham. She wants to "push on " with Heathrow ASAP.
How on earth can you support a decision without regard to accountability re costs when you have barely been in the postion a week!
I can understand a supporter of Heathrow with a vested interest in its growth supporting it BUT chair of the transport select committee appears to have taken leave of her senses.
It's all in stark contrast to the penny pinching up here !
The new chair of the Transport Select Committee is Lilian Greenwood a Labour MP from Nottingham. She wants to "push on " with Heathrow ASAP.
How on earth can you support a decision without regard to accountability re costs when you have barely been in the postion a week!
I can understand a supporter of Heathrow with a vested interest in its growth supporting it BUT chair of the transport select committee appears to have taken leave of her senses.
It's all in stark contrast to the penny pinching up here !
The overriding problem which MAG faces is the requirement to fund all redevelopment privately from its own resources. The fact is that £1Bn is a huge investment for a company the size of MAG, and that is the budget for the TP alone. They will additionally need to fund other unrelated works at MAN during the period running up to TP completion. And then there has to be investment set aside for STN, EMA and BOH too. Given that there is no state-funding involved, they also need to achieve a balance between delivering a facility which will do an efficient job, but not so extravagantly that the airlines will baulk at the costs which must inevitably be passed along to them. As residents with some sense of civic pride, most of us here would love an iconic architectural showpiece. But unfortunately, MAN's portfolio of airline customers won't be keen to pay up for that. The few which do require a higher quality of passenger experience will take control by investing in their own corporate lounges and fast-tracking their premium clients anyway. But most of MAN's customers are travelling with budget carriers for whom price is everything. The terminal product must be tailored to the specifications of these end-users.
Given that the budget for this project has been approved at around the £1Bn level, MAG must make this funding stretch as far as possible. If they prioritise aesthetics to a greater extent, some features which improve functionality must make way instead. But functional structures do not necessarily imply poor build-quality. Difficult choices are unavoidable, but we mustn't presume shoddy or low-quality construction materials just because aesthetic appearance hasn't been prioritised. Yes, it is a disappointment that only 2.5 piers will be completed by the end of this phase of the TP. But as I suggested yesterday, what we see in the video is the state of the new terminal at the point in time when this development phase has used up its allotted budget. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the "missing" pier will follow in the next round of development, perhaps along with the modifications originally envisaged in the area of Pier C. Major airports often double as construction sites ... as one project completes the next phase of development is ready to go. That would be my expectation / hope in this instance. Meanwhile, MAN is home to a number of carriers which will be unperturbed by the prospect of bussing stands in the medium-term. Just as long as the price is right.
The other important factor for me is the state of play regarding the non-customer facing investment with respect to dualing taxiways, improving aircraft traffic flows, removing airfield bottle necks, installing new airside technology etc. The new PR video (understandably) does not give us any pointers on this. I personally rate the importance of getting this right above that of finessing the aesthetic appearance of the terminal building. I will be keen to learn whether the retention of Pier C for longer than originally envisaged will inhibit aircraft flows to and from the new terminal facility.
My takeaway on this is that we need to be more open to a glass half full perspective as opposed to the alternative. Can any other UK airport outside the SE look forward to £1Bn of near-term investment? Undoubtedly with more to follow? All made possible by inhouse private funding whilst managing to avoid upsetting airline clients with over-extravagance. It isn't perfect, we all know that it is a compromise. The TP as we see it is exactly what a £1Bn construction budget buys today. Manchester Airport is very fortunate to be getting it.
With regard to staffing issues at immigration, security etc., I don't think we have sufficient data to pre-judge this. Let's see what happens. MAG won't intentionally set up the facility to fail, will they? And they've got to keep their airline clients happy by providing an efficient (if not luxurious) passenger experience. Queueing times will be key to achieving this. Significantly enhanced reliance on new technology should gradually reduce the role of the staffed desk anyway. As for travelators / lifts etc., MAG has a golden opportunity to impose minimum performance specifications and penalty clauses on the supplier here. Let's hope they do so.
The airport will need to be future-proofed in other ways too. We're technologically not far away from autonomous vehicles ... self-driving taxis or pooled rides which will be increasingly affordable with low-cost electric propulsion and no driver to be paid. There will be a shift away from the need for huge areas for traditional private car parking as this new disruptive technology takes hold. And that's another major revenue-stream which MAG will be progressively less able to rely upon as time passes. That income will have to be creatively replaced by some other means.
When the timescales in question are 10 years plus, there is so much to think about beyond the immediately obvious.
Given that the budget for this project has been approved at around the £1Bn level, MAG must make this funding stretch as far as possible. If they prioritise aesthetics to a greater extent, some features which improve functionality must make way instead. But functional structures do not necessarily imply poor build-quality. Difficult choices are unavoidable, but we mustn't presume shoddy or low-quality construction materials just because aesthetic appearance hasn't been prioritised. Yes, it is a disappointment that only 2.5 piers will be completed by the end of this phase of the TP. But as I suggested yesterday, what we see in the video is the state of the new terminal at the point in time when this development phase has used up its allotted budget. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the "missing" pier will follow in the next round of development, perhaps along with the modifications originally envisaged in the area of Pier C. Major airports often double as construction sites ... as one project completes the next phase of development is ready to go. That would be my expectation / hope in this instance. Meanwhile, MAN is home to a number of carriers which will be unperturbed by the prospect of bussing stands in the medium-term. Just as long as the price is right.
The other important factor for me is the state of play regarding the non-customer facing investment with respect to dualing taxiways, improving aircraft traffic flows, removing airfield bottle necks, installing new airside technology etc. The new PR video (understandably) does not give us any pointers on this. I personally rate the importance of getting this right above that of finessing the aesthetic appearance of the terminal building. I will be keen to learn whether the retention of Pier C for longer than originally envisaged will inhibit aircraft flows to and from the new terminal facility.
My takeaway on this is that we need to be more open to a glass half full perspective as opposed to the alternative. Can any other UK airport outside the SE look forward to £1Bn of near-term investment? Undoubtedly with more to follow? All made possible by inhouse private funding whilst managing to avoid upsetting airline clients with over-extravagance. It isn't perfect, we all know that it is a compromise. The TP as we see it is exactly what a £1Bn construction budget buys today. Manchester Airport is very fortunate to be getting it.
With regard to staffing issues at immigration, security etc., I don't think we have sufficient data to pre-judge this. Let's see what happens. MAG won't intentionally set up the facility to fail, will they? And they've got to keep their airline clients happy by providing an efficient (if not luxurious) passenger experience. Queueing times will be key to achieving this. Significantly enhanced reliance on new technology should gradually reduce the role of the staffed desk anyway. As for travelators / lifts etc., MAG has a golden opportunity to impose minimum performance specifications and penalty clauses on the supplier here. Let's hope they do so.
The airport will need to be future-proofed in other ways too. We're technologically not far away from autonomous vehicles ... self-driving taxis or pooled rides which will be increasingly affordable with low-cost electric propulsion and no driver to be paid. There will be a shift away from the need for huge areas for traditional private car parking as this new disruptive technology takes hold. And that's another major revenue-stream which MAG will be progressively less able to rely upon as time passes. That income will have to be creatively replaced by some other means.
When the timescales in question are 10 years plus, there is so much to think about beyond the immediately obvious.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 782
- 63
Indeed. It outrageous !
HS3 Would cost £2.8Bn.
HS2 could be between £56Bn & £111Bn.
https://t.co/K31e4MsotD
As for Heathrow, well you can reckon between £6bn HAL figure and £18bn which is the Tfl Figure. So let's say £12bn !
AND the new chair of Transport Select Committee who is SUPPOSEDLY impartial is demanding we push ahead with Heathrow?
Bloody hell. She has only been in situ a week. What is the point of having a select committee in the first place if they not re scrutinising figures. Something Ellman "forgot" to do in her hatred for Manchester. I fail to see how an airport heading for 55m in a shorter timescale is any less worthy than one at 100m ?
I urge an email to Greewoods constituency address pointing this out !
Does ANY PARTY GIVE a damn about the North of England?
Last edited:
From EGCC_MAN's post above:
"With regard to staffing issues at immigration, security etc., I don't think we have sufficient data to pre-judge this. Let's see what happens. MAG won't intentionally set up the facility to fail, will they? And they've got to keep their airline clients happy by providing an efficient (if not luxurious) passenger experience. Queueing times will be key to achieving this. Significantly enhanced reliance on new technology should gradually reduce the role of the staffed desk anyway"
Unless I missed it, I didn't see any e-gates on the video for Border Control; just lots of staffed desks. A couple of questions to enlighten me:
Who decides on how many e-gates there can be - MAN or UKBC?
Who procures them and approves them? (I was assuming MAN stands the cost).
What influence does MAN have in ensuring there are sufficient BC officers for manual checks?
In some cases, it could be said the number of desks is restricted by space, walls etc. But I think there is sufficient anecdotal evidence from passengers to indicate that too many desks are sometimes unmanned at busy times - my own experiences would confirm that - and given Government spending restrictions, I'm not sure we can be confident all will be well in that regard in the future unless e-technology takes over completely - and assuming it is 100% efficient.
"With regard to staffing issues at immigration, security etc., I don't think we have sufficient data to pre-judge this. Let's see what happens. MAG won't intentionally set up the facility to fail, will they? And they've got to keep their airline clients happy by providing an efficient (if not luxurious) passenger experience. Queueing times will be key to achieving this. Significantly enhanced reliance on new technology should gradually reduce the role of the staffed desk anyway"
Unless I missed it, I didn't see any e-gates on the video for Border Control; just lots of staffed desks. A couple of questions to enlighten me:
Who decides on how many e-gates there can be - MAN or UKBC?
Who procures them and approves them? (I was assuming MAN stands the cost).
What influence does MAN have in ensuring there are sufficient BC officers for manual checks?
In some cases, it could be said the number of desks is restricted by space, walls etc. But I think there is sufficient anecdotal evidence from passengers to indicate that too many desks are sometimes unmanned at busy times - my own experiences would confirm that - and given Government spending restrictions, I'm not sure we can be confident all will be well in that regard in the future unless e-technology takes over completely - and assuming it is 100% efficient.
User001
New Member
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
When one of the biggest complaints on social media and review sites at the moment is immigration, with 1-2 hour waits at most times of the day now being reported, we know there is an issue.
UKBF seem to stubbornly refuse to add more staff in its current format, then what say so would MAN have in the new terminal.
That's the crux I was getting at.
UKBF seem to stubbornly refuse to add more staff in its current format, then what say so would MAN have in the new terminal.
That's the crux I was getting at.
Dobbo
New Member
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
I think the ultimate success or failure of the TP will be the back of house type functions. So, security screening, baggage handling, immigration - as user notes these seem to be the major complaints on social media. If these complaints are largely eliminated it will be much easier to judge the rest of the project at face value.
Another quote from EGCC_MAN.
"And then there has to be investment set aside for STN, EMA and BOH too."
Excellent point. While the numbers for EMA & BOH are less significant, this is not the case with STN.
On the STN web site, there is a reference to MAG having spent £150m since it acquired the airport in 2013 (it seems longer ago than that). Now there is £130m to spend on a new Terminal which I suspect will be fairly short term compared to the TP. and I'm sure I read somewhere other key investments are planned.
A bit of a chicken and egg. With STN, the Group carries more financial clout and money needed to be spent there after being neglected by BAA etc.
Without STN, the Group is smaller, without the same muscle, but MAN would be the overwhelming beneficiary of new investment.
I guess it's partly a question of why that substantial Australian investor bought in. Was his prime interest STN as some have suggested? On the other hand, he must have approved the TP.
"And then there has to be investment set aside for STN, EMA and BOH too."
Excellent point. While the numbers for EMA & BOH are less significant, this is not the case with STN.
On the STN web site, there is a reference to MAG having spent £150m since it acquired the airport in 2013 (it seems longer ago than that). Now there is £130m to spend on a new Terminal which I suspect will be fairly short term compared to the TP. and I'm sure I read somewhere other key investments are planned.
A bit of a chicken and egg. With STN, the Group carries more financial clout and money needed to be spent there after being neglected by BAA etc.
Without STN, the Group is smaller, without the same muscle, but MAN would be the overwhelming beneficiary of new investment.
I guess it's partly a question of why that substantial Australian investor bought in. Was his prime interest STN as some have suggested? On the other hand, he must have approved the TP.
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
-
#LiverpoolJohnLennonWeight: 2
-
#liverpoolairportWeight: 2
-
#Jet2Weight: 1
-
#EasyJetRoutesWeight: 1
-
#laviationWeight: 1
-
#RYANAIRWeight: 1