Manchester Airport proposes to extend use of both runways

What appears missing is any reference to increased freight , re; Airport City and expanded freight handling. I feel sorry for residents of Knutsford , Mobberley and Halebarns who will suffer with the increased noise and air pollution.. a subject close to CEC's current troubles.. Unfortunately without a 'Windsor Castle' and Royal in residence objections might cause delay but no change.

This is precisely why residents must object to the continued development of our town. Even the most controversial projects are re-packaged to make them as palatable as possible to the electorate, then amended at a later date to something that would never have been accepted in the original proposal. Thus we end up with an "exclusive development" that becomes a sprawling estate, a "local store" that becomes a superstore and a "bypass" that ends up becoming an access road to a vast housing development necessitating another bypass.

I'm sure the communities who are affected by this proposal will be delighted to learn that their quality of life is a mere inconvenience in the continued expansion of Manchester Airport.

Just a further example of developers' "creep", some may call it "moving the goalposts" and many other such phrases.
M/c Airport (Ringway as was but another example of marketing"creep") know its R2 has been built with limitations placed to protect residents below the flight path, but now it wishes to have the limits removed with only a passing reference to changes, it proclaims "Depending on where you live THERE MAY BE no change" MEANING there WILL BE CHANGES and tough luck, residents!
All very well for some airport "communal deaf" reps coming to WTC, to go through the charade of "public consultation" but from all similar previous exercises they will NOT HEAR the real worries of people living below the flight paths.
Another example of "creep" is that being exampled by the local arch villain Royal London & its equally disingenuous sole mate HOW Planning - they go big on "temporary", designed to lull & placate opposition but which soon morphs into "permanent". You just cannot change the spots on the leopard as it springs forth to eat up the community alive!
There are other names one could easily call such organisations - I will leave those to the readers' creative imaginations.

It would be interesting to see what the difference is between business use and leisure. Even Heathrow has seen leisure use overtake business. What we will see is a proliferation of cheap flights enabling passengers to jet off to
their holidays throughout the night. The fact that it may disturb thousands of lives on the ground means nothing to Manchester Airport to whom profit at any cost is all.

Well said Nick Jones. Obviously Manchester Airport is destined to become a 24/7 365 days a year freight cargo hub. The title of Logistics Centre says it all. The investment of DHL and others does not bode well for the near future as far as noise pollution is concerned. I live near the end of Moor Lane and I do not appreciate the testing of engines at 1 in the morning for long periods. Profit is all so no doubt about 3rd runway won't be long in the offing.

Manchester Airport has 2 runways - but they are not independent in operation because they are too close together. An aircraft cannot operate on one of the runways without consideration of what aircraft may be operating on the other runway. Operational capacity of the airport was increased by building runway2 and I don't know what the numbers are but it certainly wasn't doubled. The layout was flawed form day 1 and should never have been built. A second runway should have been put parallel to the M56 and the space in between the runways then used for new terminals instead of where they sited terminal2. With the runway layout as it is now, aircraft either have to cross the runway in use for landing to reach the runway in use for take off, or after landing cross the runway in use for take off in order to reach the terminals. From a safety point of view nobody would really think of going for this layout for two runways. Additionally in conditions of low visibility the airport needs to revert to single runway operation because minimum visibility levels need to be achieved to enable ATC and pilots to be able to see clearly the proximity of other aircraft when crossing any runway in either of these two scenarios.
Most airports in the UK have evolved from WW2 military airfields and added to piecemeal over the years as aviation expanded. I can't really think of any airport that is of a decent efficient layout. They all have operational issues. Heathrow should be closed down and a new airport built out in the Thames and with transport links to the rest of the country and London. The only airport that could be expanded and turned into a decent design layout is Stansted. In the recent past I believe there have only been two brand-new airports in Europe - Munich and Athens. Both of these are fine examples of a design layout that is efficient and safe.
As well as my observations about Manchester Airport I would like to say that the Manchester Metro transport system is also a bad choice. A better alternative would have been the trolleybus. See the Trolleybus UK website at http://www.tbus.org.uk/home.htm to get an idea of what I mean.
If this "Northern Powerhouse" ever gets under way it will be on the foundations of two of the regions major transport infrastructures that aren't the best - shame really and all because of poor choices.
Regards, D. Smith.