BMI701EGCC From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 162 posts, RR: 0 Posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1436 times:
This is my first ever post on A.net, and what a pleasure it is to be a part of this worldwide community, thanks
Now lets get down to the talking
Q. I life about 10miles form EGCC/MAN, Ive been wondering about could MAN be expanded? Maybe a T4?
Because 1. It is getting worldwide recognition about it being "europe's friendliest airport"
2.flights are being upgraded from 1x to 2x daily etc....
Also MAN is not part of the BAA group so it couldn't be held back?
Your thoughts please
G-PATI-"G-PATI, Back inbound to Barton"MCT APR-"G-PATI, Continue, Keep lookout on VFR traffic"
David_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7168 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 1377 times:
There may be tentative plans for a T4 but if it comes to fruition, it won't be for at least 10 to 15 years! Below is a brief outline from the MAN Development Strategy to 2015
"The preferred areas for apron extension will be to the west of Terminal 2 (including land currently used for car parking); to the east of Terminal 3 (requiring relocation of existing uses), in the vicinity of the current maintenance village and on land at Cloughbank Farm presently utilised as the Aviation Viewing Park."
T1: original capacity 2.5 million passengers, currently 11 million passengers. Planned: more check-in desks and improve/extend arrivals area. Possible redevelopment of the multi-storey car park
T2: original capacity of 6 million passengers – it’s now been rasied to 7.3 million passengers. Planned extend pier and build a remote pier. Total capacity expected to be 18 million passengers
T3: current capacity 4.7 million passengers. Planned: expansion to the east of the terminal (losing a car park) but nothing set in concrete yet. Planned total capacity is expected to be 8.5 million passengers
By 2015 the capacities of the terminals are estimated to be capable of being expanded to process:
Terminal 1 14.7 million passengers per annum
Terminal 2 18.0 million passengers per annum
Terminal 3 8.5 million passengers per annum
Making a total of 41.2 million passengers
And a little table of how things have increased over the years....
Demoose From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 26 Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1346 times:
The biggest problem at the moment is the stand capacity at MAN, the place is so congested in the mornings, not helped by the bottlenecks within the airport layout. There was an article in the Manchester evening news the other week about how they are desperate to expand, with stand provision being the most crucial at the moment. They will have to start getting the JCB's out soon if its to reach those passenger targets.
Planespotterx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1298 times:
Im not too sure wether the area is "green belt" land, but it seems MAN has a huge area of farmland and Woodland to the East of it, and Ive always wondered if they could ever develop anything there, instead of knocking down the old buildings and car-parks and making public service a bit more strenous (I mean if you build over a car-park you have to move the car park somewhere else to acommodate the cars you moved in the first place.)
Thats just my opinion anyway, if MAN has the space, why not use it..
Demoose From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 1952 posts, RR: 26 Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1282 times:
One thing I learnt during my work over summer is that MAN is in mainly located in greenbelt land. However, with it being the airport it is seen as a unique case when it comes to development, hence it can get away with building a new runway through the cheshire countryside! Same rule applies with terminal buildings, it would all be looked at slightly differently with it being such a major development with big impacts - bad and good.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1279 times:
T4 was the subject of detailed planning when T2 was being built. MAPLC is very forward looking.
Short term, T3 will be extended. This does look like it means the end of the Airport Hotel pub unless it can be accomodated, but will provide extra gates for OneWorld and UK/Eire operations which are being concentrated there. This will free up some gate space at T1. Aer Lingus looks likely to move there.
T2 can have Phase Two built, the original plans provided for a remote pier serviced by tunnels. This is where the cargo and parking stands are now. Skyteam are being accomodated there.
T1 is being refurbished at the moment, and more is planned. US and VS are moving there, which will be the Star operation terminal. SQ could concievably follow them once lounges are properly installed. US Airways will benefit from codesharing with BD and other Star carriers, with frequent connections both domestically and into Germany and Scandinavia.
As for Green Belt issues and other considerations, there were changes made to the zoning arrangements about the time that 06R/24L was built which would make it easier to expand onto adjacent land. The cargo centre could be relocated, and one possibility is to build it away from its current location. FedEx originally wanted a larger cargo ramp for a MAN operation. The land to the south and east of the airport would be favourite for a new apron.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
24L/06R is up for an upgrade to a properly fed runway with a parallel taxiway. That's in the works. LGA seems to manage with its parallel runways and is a lot busier.
The restrictions on times also played a part in the FedEx decision to not locate there. They would potentially have needed two runways working at night. The lunchtime curfew isn't as binding as it can be suspended if needed, and wouldn't be a major obstacle to have revoked permanently.
Whitehatter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1241 times:
If BAe Syatems loses the Nimrod contract you can bet your granny's false teeth that a certain Mr O'Leary will be sniffing.
A lovely potential airport fifteen miles from Manchester....it'd be a Ryanair wet dream with the runway already there to handle 737s. If TUI can do it with Coventry then what's to stop someone like FR trying for a deal to use Woodford?
Jetset7E7 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2004, 1083 posts, RR: 17 Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 1060 times:
No it will never be open 24 hours, there is a law between Manchester Airport, and the Cheshire government, as there are noise restrictions during certain hours, this is why the runway is closed 12-3pm, and anytime during the night.
Retrofitted Blended Winglets - The Future Is On The Wing