Infrastructure, Developments and Construction
- Thread starter Aviador
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
No idea. It takes ages for approval so I don't think there is anything negative to read into a month or two of silence.
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
Screenshot from the new fly-through video.
I had a feeling that pier 3 might be the one earmarked for USPC if it still happens. But don't know where I got that from and may well be wrong. Incidentally, if Stockholm was the last airport to gain USPC, it was in Dec'2016 I believe, so nothing further since Trump's inauguration which may or may not be a coincidence.
Edit: Better forget that first comment. Pier 3 will house the 3 A380 gates, so unlikely to be USPC. In any case, wouldn't USPC formalities be inside the main terminal with departing a/c not restricted to one pier? I'm assuming a document would be issued on clearance which would have to be presented at the appropriate boarding gate - in whichever pier? How does it work for hold bags?
Edit: Better forget that first comment. Pier 3 will house the 3 A380 gates, so unlikely to be USPC. In any case, wouldn't USPC formalities be inside the main terminal with departing a/c not restricted to one pier? I'm assuming a document would be issued on clearance which would have to be presented at the appropriate boarding gate - in whichever pier? How does it work for hold bags?
Last edited:
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
I'd have thought the Code F gates would be as close to the runways as possible to minimise conflicts?
Also, passengers through USPC would (I'm almost certain) need to go through a process and then be segregated from other passengers up to and including boarding.
P.s. - how do you know pier 3 houses the Code F gates?
Also, passengers through USPC would (I'm almost certain) need to go through a process and then be segregated from other passengers up to and including boarding.
P.s. - how do you know pier 3 houses the Code F gates?
According to an article in the TAS magazine in May, the A380 gates are scheduled to be numbered 340,350 &360, with the '3' indicating pier 3. Incidentally, pier 3 is the one next to the short pier 4, so from a practical standpoint it is the nearest to the runway. Pier 1 is at the western end.
You could be right about segregation once pax have cleared, but as things are this summer, could you get all US flights on the one pier? Say 6 x TCX, 4 x VS, 3 x AA and 1 x UA. Oh, and 1 x SQ. Not all will be there at the same time probably, but TCX could be 8 and VS could be 5. Remote parking and bussing maybe. How many a/c on a pier? 14 max. say, and could all be wide bodied?
Edit: Grrr. Brain gone to sleep. Not all TCX flights are to the US of course. Still, could be 5 some days I guess. And if momentum is maintained, it could be more.
You could be right about segregation once pax have cleared, but as things are this summer, could you get all US flights on the one pier? Say 6 x TCX, 4 x VS, 3 x AA and 1 x UA. Oh, and 1 x SQ. Not all will be there at the same time probably, but TCX could be 8 and VS could be 5. Remote parking and bussing maybe. How many a/c on a pier? 14 max. say, and could all be wide bodied?
Edit: Grrr. Brain gone to sleep. Not all TCX flights are to the US of course. Still, could be 5 some days I guess. And if momentum is maintained, it could be more.
Last edited:
A couple of follow-up points. The E-Gate concept has been a success. They are here to stay. I'd be amazed if they were rolled back now. The real question is how many will be in-situ when the T2 TP reaches completion. Obviously, I can't provide an answer to that but the case for installing a high number of E-Gates is compelling.
On the subject of the narrow link-corridor. We must keep in mind that this is not designed to be a dwell-space for passengers, and MAG will (ideally) want them to pass through quickly (and not be tempted to dawdle there). Customer impressions will be shaped by the main departure lounge and gate-space experience. And yes, dare I say it, the shops and catering outlets! They will only remember the link-corridor if they grind to a halt inside it due to queueing. Meanwhile, in the final version, we need not expect bare walls inside the corridor. Art exhibits, photos of destinations offered from MAN, and yes, probably advertising too! But we can safely bet that that wall (err, resource) won't be a miserable blank canvas.
On the subject of the narrow link-corridor. We must keep in mind that this is not designed to be a dwell-space for passengers, and MAG will (ideally) want them to pass through quickly (and not be tempted to dawdle there). Customer impressions will be shaped by the main departure lounge and gate-space experience. And yes, dare I say it, the shops and catering outlets! They will only remember the link-corridor if they grind to a halt inside it due to queueing. Meanwhile, in the final version, we need not expect bare walls inside the corridor. Art exhibits, photos of destinations offered from MAN, and yes, probably advertising too! But we can safely bet that that wall (err, resource) won't be a miserable blank canvas.
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
The whole USPC process would likely be all in the pier, as the whole process needs to be in a segregated area.
The more I look at the external renders, the more I realise that the 'missing' pier is likely to be the USPC pier. If you look (and appriciate this may be an illusion of sorts), you can see that the footprint left where the pier should be is wider than that of the other piers. I would expect a USPC pier would need to be slightly wider to house the customs function, further baggage checks, perhaps some extra shops/lounge to keep the passengers happy once through customs as they will not be allowed to go back to the main terminal (bar any events such as fire alarms).
And there are so many comparable examples which we could quote. Including publicly-funded transport infrastructure projects. MAG really should apply for some help!
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
You could probably replicate LHRs capacity and use it as a local transfer hub with LHR acting as LH-LH transfers and London O&D...
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
USPC Pier
I'm not 100% certain the "footprint" represents the built up area. I think it represents the access road looping round the outside of the built up pier. However, from that angle, it is difficult to tell if this footprint (whatever it represents) is wider than any of the others.
Having said that, I would expect a USPC pier to be larger than the others. As user_001 says, the custom and security functions need to be housed there. Also, you need a space large enough to house several widebody's worth of passengers at any one time. You might get the odd B752 or A321LR, or MAX, flying TATL, but I expect most aircraft will be in the A330/B787 size category.
So shops, lounges, circulatory space will certainly be necessary in this pier.
I'm not 100% certain the "footprint" represents the built up area. I think it represents the access road looping round the outside of the built up pier. However, from that angle, it is difficult to tell if this footprint (whatever it represents) is wider than any of the others.
Having said that, I would expect a USPC pier to be larger than the others. As user_001 says, the custom and security functions need to be housed there. Also, you need a space large enough to house several widebody's worth of passengers at any one time. You might get the odd B752 or A321LR, or MAX, flying TATL, but I expect most aircraft will be in the A330/B787 size category.
So shops, lounges, circulatory space will certainly be necessary in this pier.
A bit of nostalgia but it concerns Route Development that has already happened.
Found myself thinking how chuffed the late Sir Gil Thompson would have been to see the likes of Hainan and Saudia flying daily and non-stop to China and the Kingdom; CX with non-stop flights and SQ to Houston, and more recently Oman Air. And I suspect he would have been equally delighted by the growth of long haul services by TCX and VS.
He died in 2013 so would have been aware of the proliferation of flights to the ME with various carriers, the start of the A380 (2010?) but not the A359, which as User pointed out is a regular fixture now at MAN. It was in his reign of course that SQ and AA finally got approval to fly to MAN in the mid-eighties and I know he was very ambitious for the development of our airport.
Why did this come to mind? I guess it was after watching a VS B747, a Saudia B789, a SQ A359 and Hainan depart from 23R shortly after midday. 4 flights with just an easyjet to interrupt the flow of wide body departures.
Found myself thinking how chuffed the late Sir Gil Thompson would have been to see the likes of Hainan and Saudia flying daily and non-stop to China and the Kingdom; CX with non-stop flights and SQ to Houston, and more recently Oman Air. And I suspect he would have been equally delighted by the growth of long haul services by TCX and VS.
He died in 2013 so would have been aware of the proliferation of flights to the ME with various carriers, the start of the A380 (2010?) but not the A359, which as User pointed out is a regular fixture now at MAN. It was in his reign of course that SQ and AA finally got approval to fly to MAN in the mid-eighties and I know he was very ambitious for the development of our airport.
Why did this come to mind? I guess it was after watching a VS B747, a Saudia B789, a SQ A359 and Hainan depart from 23R shortly after midday. 4 flights with just an easyjet to interrupt the flow of wide body departures.
- Jul 16, 2015
- 0
- 0
Nice post Land23R
I see some enthusiasts bemoan the lack of variety at MAN compared to the 'good old days', which to some extent is true, but I feel that the variety now is just as good (we have Cathay back, still have AA, still have SQ and so on so forth), but the destination choice is the best it's ever been, these in themselves are some golden days, and they should be celebrated.
For a regional city at the edge of Europe, MAN has probably one of the most enviable route networks and carrier portfolios going, there are probably countless other cities that would love this choice, like Lisbon, Hamburg, Nice, Geneva and Athens to name a few.
I see some enthusiasts bemoan the lack of variety at MAN compared to the 'good old days', which to some extent is true, but I feel that the variety now is just as good (we have Cathay back, still have AA, still have SQ and so on so forth), but the destination choice is the best it's ever been, these in themselves are some golden days, and they should be celebrated.
For a regional city at the edge of Europe, MAN has probably one of the most enviable route networks and carrier portfolios going, there are probably countless other cities that would love this choice, like Lisbon, Hamburg, Nice, Geneva and Athens to name a few.
Aceshigh
Well-Known Member
- Nov 24, 2015
- 783
- 63
I spoke to a German enthusiast who had managed to get round Southside a couple of month back.
He reckoned it was the best airport he had been to by a country mile for photography, variety, freq of operation etc !
I have said before quite how Manchester churns 27m on the size of its footprint is nothing short of remarkable!
He reckoned it was the best airport he had been to by a country mile for photography, variety, freq of operation etc !
I have said before quite how Manchester churns 27m on the size of its footprint is nothing short of remarkable!
- Oct 27, 2015
- 0
- 0
No - I think this pier is intended to house all of the USPC facility. They cannot release videos plans etc on the presumption that it is granted and I think that is the reason why it has simply been removed from the CGIs.
Remember the piers are a permitted development and don't require planning permission. They could decide to change them even now.
Upgrade Your Account
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
-
#BHXWeight: 1
-
#EMAWeight: 1
-
#LBAREGENWeight: 1
-
#David.itlWeight: 1
-
#Lands23RWeight: 1