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.
 
There have been many meetings (and still are) between the Home Office and MAG regarding Border Force staffing and accommodation in the extended T2. There will be 25 e-gates in the new terminal and the Border Force arrivals area will be as wide as the A380 wingspan(!). Oh, and Border Force/Home Office do not "stubbornly" refuse to increase staffing at the airport. You may have heard of something called austerity and maximum 1% pay rises which has meant many BF staff leaving for pastures new and not being replaced hence e-gates and seasonal workforce.
 
External Change: new lounge mezzanine?

I just wanted to highlight what looks like a new mezzanine level on top of the new section of terminal.

It may be that some of the premium lounges.

Image 1

View attachment 5641
This shows the old fly through. The now missing (presumed USPC pier) leads directly into the new part of the terminal building.

Image 2
View attachment 5642
This is a screenshot of the new flythrough. Note the footprint where the presumed USPC pier is to be located.

Above it, on top of the new part of the terminal building is a box type structure with what I assume is a glass window with a view of the airfield. This is not shown in image 1.

What better place to house your Emirates lounge, Virgin clubhouse or any one of a number of premium lounges.

Maybe its just a bad render, but it looks to me like the current T2 contact stands are still there when the new piers are in place...?
 
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.nsf/alldocs/5ECF359208C3E52B8025816000375134/$File/.OAN+52-2017+CLOSURE+OF+SECTION+OF+TAXIWAY+JULIET+TO+FACILITATE+TEMPORARY+CAR+PARKING.pdf

Apparently this is due to full depth resurfacing of the holding area. The temporary car park is presumed to be for contractor vehicles.

Makes more sense to me...
 
Apparently this is due to full depth resurfacing of the holding area. The temporary car park is presumed to be for contractor vehicles. Makes more sense to me...

According to Suzeman on pprune, (someone who I'm sure will be correct), it is in fact for temporary landside car parking. It will apparently remain so, even after the taxiway work is completed, until 31 October. He thinks it relates to displaced car parking re TP work plus increased passenger demand.
 
something from MAN I don't think we have yet seen:

http://mantp.co.uk/manchester-airpo...n-on-transport-spend-in-the-north-of-england/


  • Airport calls for Government to commit to HS3 project in latest budget
  • Airport also wants tax reform on flying to encourage additional connectivity
  • Airport unveils latest look at £1bn Transformation programme
“The time is now” for Government to truly throw its weight behind the Northern Powerhouse vision.

That was the message today delivered by Manchester Airport chief executive Ken O’Toole, as he unveiled the next phase of its £1bn Transformation Programme.

Mr O’Toole said the airport is pressing ahead with the investment in recognition of the strength of the Northern economy and the potential for hundreds of thousands of jobs to be created in the coming years.

Delivering the opening speech at the UK Northern Powerhouse Conference in Manchester city centre, Mr O’Toole said public and private sector leaders from across the North had ensured the Northern Powerhouse project maintained momentum over the past year.

That included Manchester Airport launching direct flights to key markets like Beijing, Houston, Los Angeles and Boston, as well as progressing with its £1bn Transformation Project, the largest private sector investment in the North.

Mr O’Toole said a clear case had been made for investment in infrastructure projects like Northern Powerhouse Rail (HS3), which has the potential to transform the Northern economy by dramatically improving connectivity between the North’s leading cities and Manchester Airport.

But he urged Ministers to make a clear commitment to the scheme to show the Government is serious about creating a thriving and internationally competitive Northern Powerhouse.

He said: “If the Northern Powerhouse is to be truly competitive on the global stage, it should be as easy as possible to travel from Hull to Hong Kong; Liverpool to Los Angeles and Sheffield to Singapore.

“Slashing journey times through investment in NPR could lead to the North securing direct flights to 20-30 key global markets, with millions more people in easy reach of Manchester Airport.

“It is connectivity like that that will maximize growth in sectors like life sciences, advanced manufacturing, technology and energy. It is connectivity like that that is key to delivering an Industrial Strategy that rebalances the UK economy.

“Northern Powerhouse Rail could give us that connectivity and drive transformational improvements in productivity and growth.”

L6674_medium1.jpg

Mr O’Toole said it was clear 2017 was going to be a “very important year for the North” in terms of the need for Government support.

He added: “We have the plan – the time is now for Government to commit to it, starting in just a few weeks’ time with the Budget.”

Mr O’Toole also told delegates the the Government must seize the opportunity presented by the creation of a new national aviation policy this year to ensure that airports across the UK maximise their potential to link the UK to the world’s most important markets.

That will not be achieved unless road, rail and aviation policies are joined-up, he said, adding that strong international connectivity is key to the success of the Government’s new Industrial Strategy.

Mr O’Toole said unlocking the potential of airports like Manchester was key to creating a “truly global Britain,” especially in the 10-15 years it will take to build a new runway at Heathrow.

And he told the conference there were short term measures Government could take to demonstrate Britain was “open for business,” such as the reform of aviation taxes, border and visa policies.

He was speaking as Manchester Airport unveiled a host of new images showing what it could look like following its £1bn investment.

He added: “We know we are among the best airports in the world when it comes to the number of different destinations on offer, whether that be Boston, Beijing or Barcelona; Houston, Hong Kong or Hamburg.

“Our £1bn Transformation Programme is all about investing in the future, so we can continue to grow by securing more direct flight services in our role as the North’s global gateway. It also about investing in our facilities and in the latest technology to provide passengers with best possible experience.

“These new images showcase the look, feel and quality that will be delivered by the Transformation Project, which is one of the largest private sector investments in the North of England in decades.

“We’ve made a massive private investment commitment, which clearly shows ours ambition for the Northern Powerhouse to succeed, and now we call upon Government to match that through delivering on key infrastructure schemes.”
 
You mean extracting a portion from the £2595.68 per head per annum public transport expenditure from London and redistributing that to supplement the £184.96 spent per head in the West Midlands, the £99.19 spent in the North West and the extraordinary £5.01 spent in the North East? Wow, more than a fiver each!!! Curiously, I have no moral objection to that. Especially since London has been eating our share of the cake for 50 years already. They're due a rest to let their - err, our - lunch settle. No need for higher taxes at all. Just equitable distribution of existing national infrastructure funding.

You seem to be missing my point. Yes that is the fair thing to do and what should probably be done. BUT. Politicians set where the money goes, and politicians don't want any less money going to London. We can kick and scream all we want but it won't change things. Even if somebody were to go to government with an excellent plan with lots of return for a project that was in the North, but to fund it money had to be relocated away from London, the politicians likely wouldn't go for it, because it would mean LESS MONEY going to London.

Curious argument. If BHX has a valid application to make they should submit it. I have no problem with the West Midlands getting its due share for projects which meet the criteria of public benefit. Likewise other operators of strategic public transport infrastructure in the English regions.

If they had a valid application...but my point was, what if they (or any other airport) didn't. Say there's an airport that has ample capacity and doesn't need expanding. If another airport were to get public funds, they'd say that was unfair and that they should get some as well. Even though they didn't need it. If an airport wanted to expand, and they asked for money from government, that's fine.

I can't agree with this. MAG - as a profit-driven private enterprise - is best served by doing nothing and raking in those car-parking profits. It is the Northern economy (not MAG's bottom line) which stands to benefit from T3 expansion. So the corporate interests of MAG and the best interests of the regional economy are not financially aligned in this case. This is where state funding has a role to play in offsetting MAG's commercial loss so that the greater good can be served on behalf of the public. State funds do not exist to boost the profits of private businesses, but conversely, private businesses are not morally bound to sacrifice their own profits for the public good either. They aren't charities.

I'm sorry but we must disagree on this. MAG sets where their parking is. If that happens to be in the way of a future expansion project, then that's their fault for bad forward planning. If there had been something outside of MAGs control which meant they could only build parking on that site previously, but that "something" is no longer applicable, then fine. As far as I'm aware, that's not the case.

As I've said before, simply asking government for money hasn't worked. A different approach is needed, and I personally think the best way forward is for local authorities to work with local businesses on infrastructure plans. Businesses fund a certain amount, then they and local authorities go to government to ask for the remaining funds.

Yes we have a very London-centric government and politicians. Is that fair? No. Is that going to change anytime soon? Also No.
 
Must confess I refute the accusation we are "asking" the government for money begging more like !

The last time I checked I "thought" we had a government running the whole of the country rather than an elitist regime running London. That is the perception that Grayling is leaving in his wake ! Northern Tories with thin majorities are apoplectic!

What we are actually asking for is a fair and equitable distribution. Note the term equitable.

I have listed a few (Not all) London projects below.

£15bn for the Elizabethan line
£6.5 bn for Thameslink
£1.5bn for Bank Underground
£5bn Thames Crossing
£6bn DLR 2019 2023 Phasing

£12bn proposed for Heathrow road rail.

Lord know how much for Crossrail 2. (Apparently we are now told that electrification of Leeds Manchester has defeated the greatest brains in network rail, whilst what would appear to be a feat of monumental engineering to everyone else
ie a tunnel 60 mile under London is a walk in the park.

And what of the few bob to slap the back of the DUP.
No scrutiny here was there.
No reference to those cost /benefits and fair returns matched by private industry you referenced.

By way of balance here is a list I gleaned from another forum of those special projects elsewhere in the country.
.
.
Hs2...possibly
.
.
.
.
.
.
Er thats it

Do politicians actually think we are stupid or is it just them ?

London has spades in the ground now, not some mythical fantasy project looking over the horizon 2 generations away (...and this assumes of course it doesnt get scrapped). By then London will of course have had further slugs of massive and tangible "real" investment and grayling will be a single line in Burks Peerage.
 
Last edited:
Is it possible to get this back on track, which is the T2 construction project?

The thread title is actually Manchester - Building the future.

T2 / TP fits this category but so does the infrastructure funding debate. Which thread would you prefer to see used ... or would you like to create one?
 
Well I created this thread to actually document the build of T2 and T2 only at this stage.

There are already seperate threads for rail/roads etc, and another for general infrastructure debate. The purpose of this thread wasn't really to discuss the pros and cons of things like cross rail etc.

I'm not saying they are not worthy debate topics, but it's just not why I created this thread.....
 
Well I created this thread to actually document the build of T2 and T2 only at this stage.

OK, you know that but the thread title doesn't reflect your original intention so the wider interpretation by other contributors is understandable. The recent discussion has encompassed airport development funding as well, not just road and rail. Perhaps you need to edit the thread title?
 
More than happy to have my musings put in rail etc.

In mitigation I also read it as Manchester infastructure rather than specifically related to T2.

If you cannot get to the airport there is no point expanding it !

....and if the promised money to support that expansion (which will after all double capacity ) has been cut , or more likely diverted elsewhere , that seems "legitimate" debate.

Could the mods ajudicate so we can ensure cooperation all round whilst leaving all free to express our individual points of view.
 
Last edited:
During the TP presentation to TAS last night, James Lord confirmed that MAG has not yet committed to progress plans for USPDC. A commercial decision must be made on this by MAG guided by cost analysis and a sound business case. However, we are likely to have a final decision in place by the end of 2017. Beyond this it would become increasingly difficult to physically incorporate USPDC into the T2-TP project going forward.
 

Upload Media

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.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock