Why Was Manston Airport Closed?

[Hypognosis]

The Boris Island story was featured on BBC today. Well done to Mary Creagh MP for managing to give the bird strike hazard a mention, during her interview. Boris has previously been dismissive about this risk, in the past. He doesn't give a t0ss about the ecological angle and clearly has never set eyes on a flock of estuary-loving waterfowl large enough to down an aircraft.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29026484

I wanted to mention Boris in the question title but the thread from July, which I originally replied to fails to show up in latest posts so I fear there is a word filter in operation ;-)

So, other than the local residents, who wanted Manston closed down rather than expanded and linked to the Chunnel HS rail link?

[Hypognosis]

@NJ

Yes, single runway is a serious failing. At a push, you could get 50-60 planes per hour into the air or get 60 to land* but trying to do both cuts the movement rate, due to safety separation margins, to 30-40 per hour. Dual runways means simultaneous landings and takeoffs and easier taxiing arrangements.

If you look at the size of Denver International airport in Google Earth, it's larger than many UK towns. We don't have a single patch of land of that size which doesn't have at least one hill and a village or town on it.

For London to have a decent hub airtport, several somebodys' houses are going to have to be knocked down! They should stop pussyfooting around, pay the going rate plus a few percent to get them to wherever else makes them happy and get building. Now, not on the other side of the election.

----
Sir Howard's commission was set up by the government to consider ways of expanding airport capacity. The final report is expected next summer, after the general election.
----
^^^ This is why nothing has been done in the past 50 years.


* Heathrow's famed 60 landings per hour might be only in the early mornings which is when they land on both runways at the same time and no departures are going out.

[New Judge]

I think the short answer to "why did it close", Hypo, is that it simply could not sustain sufficient business to make it viable. Its location meant that, realisically, the only people likely to use it in preference to Gatwick or Heathrow were people living in East Kent and possibly East Sussex. Unless you have easy access to the A2/M2, getting to it is not easy, even with the recent road improvements. If you are travelling from the south of Manston (i.e. from the Dover/Folkestone direction) the roads are not good at all. It has no direct rail link, the nearest station being Birchington-on-Sea. This is almost two hours from London (even using the HS1 service to Rochester). The HS1 serves Ramsgate direct (about 1h20m from St Pancras) and a taxi or an infrequent bus service would be needed from there.

Quite simply it is not in the right place to attract substantial patronage. A number of operators have tried but all have turned it in after a short time.

[Hypognosis]

@vulcan42
---
The risk of bird strike is a red herring, the reservoirs east of Heathrow have wintering populations of birds. Aircraft fly over them all the time.
---

Yes but at what altitude are the planes at the overflight point? A thousand feet? A few hundred?

The runway threshold for the island airport will be right down at beach level. The birds will only have to climb to 50-150 feet to cause a problem at the most critical phase of a landing.

Note: Having browsed worldaerodata.org many a time, I am aware that "BIRD HAZARD" is not an uncommon entry in the notes section. It is, however, another matter entirely to wilfully set up a -major hub- in an area known for shore bird activity. In the past, military bases were located strategically and military needs overrode nature conservation concerns. Measures to mitigate bird hazard were taken. By 'measures', I mean, of course, sustained brutality.

[whiskeryron]

// Yep bring back flying boats, that`s what I say. Why take 24 hours to get to Australia when you can take 10 days? //

Thanx for the sarci answer. Let's bring you up to date, I don't know whether the news has reached your area yet but jet propulsion engines have now been invented I am obviously talking about a serious updated version of flying boats & I see no reason why they would not work.

[New Judge]

One drawback with flying boats (and to a greater degree, seaplanes), ron, is that they are fine on a flat calm sea. However, given the nature of the weather and the seas around UK coasts, very often they will be taking off and landing from very choppy waters. These craft will have to make their way from the "runway" area to the terminal dock and unless these areas are very heavily harboured to protect them from the sea it would be a most unpleasant taxiing experience for the passengers.

[Hypognosis]

Thanks New Judge.

It just goes to show what Gatwick and Stansted are up against. They ease the load on Heathrow but have to remain viable in their own right. Single runways hamper that but they are both shoehorned into the landscape in such a way that additional runways will take out homes, shops and pubs.

Also, at some point, the land will be worth more as prime commuter-belt real estate than as an operational airport. (Manston's likely fate).

I just wish they would take timely action and not fuss about projects on this scale becoming an election issue. It is far more important than that.

[Baldric]

Given the present owner is Ann Gloag, isn't it more likely to become a Stagecoach Depot?

Using her father's redundancy money, and working with her brother Sir Brian Souter and her husband Robin Gloag, Gloag established the Stagecoach Group in 1980, running buses from Dundee to London.

On 29 November 2013 Ann Gloag took ownership of Kent International Airport, also known as Manston Airport for the sum of £1.

[Hypognosis]

@WhiskeyRon

as fond ad I am of their "land anywhere where there is water" capabilities, I have to admit that they were a temporary solution to a specific problem: -

i) Ocean crossing requires X weight of fuel
ii) X weight of fuel + Y payload requires a plane of large proportions
iii) such a plane required a length of runway most cities could not accommodate

Jet engines enable much higher cruise altitude, which means higher fuel efficiency which means more range per lb of fuel, which meant smaller planes and runway lengths which are practical for a land base.

[Hypognosis]

Thanks for that background info, Baldric. Is that easily findable online or did you extract it from the FT or somewhere similarly paywalled?

[buildersmate]

Speculative business venture.
Large brown field site on which to be able to argue for planning consent for new homes and some light industrial employment opportunities. That's what that woman is after.

[Baldric]

Hypo, It was complicated but eventually I found it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Gloag

[New Judge]

It would be some bus depot !!

The current area occupied by Manston airfield is about 700 acres (just over a square mile). When compared to Gatwick it pales into insignificance. At Gatwick the runway alone occupies almost 250 acres with the parallel main taxiway (which can and has been used as an alternative runway when necessary) almost as big. The two terminals have a combined footprint of almost 500 acres. On top of this there is apron space for 67 stands with airbridge connections and a further 48 remote stands served by coaches. Along with the minor taxiways, the spaces in between, the hangar and maintenance areas on the south side it probably exceeds the area of Manston three or four fold at least. I have a certain affection for Manston. It was the first place from which I ever flew in a RAF De Havilland Chipmunk and can still recall feeling the updraughts from Richborough power station's cooling towers (now demolished) and the pilot taking us overhead Dover Harbour to do some gentle aerobatics. But this is the problem Manston would face because even if it were to remain a single runway operation (by no means desirable) there is simply insufficient space for it to expand to the necessary size without huge disruption. As fond as my memories are, a major airport Manston ain't.

On a wider note there is now no doubt that the UK, and London in particular, is set to lose vast amounts of long-haul and hub traffic to the near continent. The simplest (and in my view the most sensible) option for extra capacity rests with Gatwick's proposal for a second runway. But even this, at best, would not be ready for more than ten years. Successive governments have prevaricated over this issue for decades and they have been entirely negligent by not deciding on an option and getting work under way.