Transport Tycoon Forums

Yesterday, by 17:15, Manchester Airport had ran out of Fuel, after the Refinery stopped pumping Fuel to it, Delaying 13 Flights, and forcing 17 others to have to stop at other UK Airports for more Fuel.
More Info here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18355592
and here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-18344397

"production issues"
Whatever that may mean

Alan Fry wrote:

A321Pilot wrote:Yesterday, by 17:15, Manchester Airport had ran out of Fuel, after the Refinery stopped pumping Fuel to it, Delaying 13 Flights, and forcing 17 others to have to stop at other UK Airports for more Fuel.
More Info here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18355592
and here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma ... r-18344397

Is the airport in financial trouble or did they forget to order enough fuel?

Clearly someone hasn't read the articles. You don't even have to read past the first couple of paragraphs.

Well, more a production problem, not really a fault of the airport.
However, the fact that this nearly happened in 2008 as well makes me surprised that they didn't look harder at securing alternative supplies/back up supplies.

Alan Fry wrote:

Ameecher wrote:Well, more a production problem, not really a fault of the airport.
However, the fact that this nearly happened in 2008 as well makes me surprised that they didn't look harder at securing alternative supplies/back up supplies.

Like Eastham Oil Terminal?

I've no idea.

That's right, I've got no clue about the matter and I'm admitting it.

Ameecher wrote:

Alan Fry wrote:

Ameecher wrote:Well, more a production problem, not really a fault of the airport.
However, the fact that this nearly happened in 2008 as well makes me surprised that they didn't look harder at securing alternative supplies/back up supplies.

Like Eastham Oil Terminal?

I've no idea.

That's right, I've got no clue about the matter and I'm admitting it.

Something Alan could learn from.

@Alan Fry: The reason it ran out of Fuel was a production problem, as stated by Ameecher. The reasons there was no Back-up is because, the Pipeline that is used, has been there since the 1960's and has never had the problem before. If you were to use Road Tankers, it would take 79 Tankers to move the amount of Fuel needed for the Airport. That is far too many Tankers to have as back up if they will only be used once every 50 Years.

I was suggesting more of a couple of pipelines from different suppliers rather than an all eggs in one basket approach. Obviously tankers can never replace a pipeline, if they could they'd never have built the pipeline. I suspected it's been researched and deemed not viable by the airport owners though.

Seems like a no-win for the airport. If they had invested in a backup system back when, then likely it, too, would not have worked, as it would have sat dormant so long!

What strikes me as "typical humans" about the whole scenario is, that decades go by without a fuel problem. Now it finally happens, and everyone wonders why something was not in place to prevent it! Ah, maybe decades of uninterrupted service has something to do with it? Many want a system put in place for these rare situations, but no one wants to pay for it! Sigh.

It's like the snowploughs and London every few years. Everyone complains that Sweden and Finland get on fine. Well those countries know down to the week when the snow will start and stop, and the drivers there know how to cope with snow. It's not worth buying snowploughs when they're going to get used once every few years!

What MAG need to do is rethink how it does things in terms of fuel, because unlike the 60s its one of the busist airports in the UK!

Can I mark this as spam?

WHAT does this add?

Alan Fry wrote:

Dave W wrote:

What MAG need to do is rethink how it does things in terms of fuel, because unlike the 60s its one of the busist airports in the UK!

Can I mark this as spam?

WHAT does this add?

Would you suggest imrprovments to the refinery? (second largest in the UK)

Remember this is has happened at a time where oil refineries are being sold my major oil companies (Stanlow included) and facing competition from overseas

Why spend loads of money to protect against a once in half a century event? It souls be cheaper to just deal with the compensation payments.

Alan Fry wrote:

Ameecher wrote:Why spend loads of money to protect against a once in half a century event? It souls be cheaper to just deal with the compensation payments.

Not even to the dammage to the UK image, I would understand if my flight was delayed due to snow, but a lack of fuel, I would understand if it was lets say Bolivia, but here?

I doubt many people even remember it already. There were 13 delayed flights and 17 others had to stop for fuel elsewhere. Hardly worth the bother of building a fail-proof system.

Ameecher wrote:I doubt many people even remember it already. There were 13 delayed flights and 17 others had to stop for fuel elsewhere. Hardly worth the bother of building a fail-proof system.

Is that all? 13 delayed flights sounds like a normal day
People seem to be making a huge fuss about this but I don't see that it's a huge fault. A problem came up, caused some issues and was sorted without an on-going major disruption to everything.
Pretty strange event indeed, but more than likely a one-off.

Alan Fry wrote:

Ameecher wrote:Why spend loads of money to protect against a once in half a century event? It souls be cheaper to just deal with the compensation payments.

Not even to the dammage to the UK image, I would understand if my flight was delayed due to snow, but a lack of fuel, I would understand if it was lets say Bolivia, but here?

It was the first time in, what, fifty years, that it happened! It's unlikely to happen again in many decades.

Most short-haul flights were unaffected as airlines could lift fuel from other airports. Long-haul flights may have needed an additional stop to fill up their tanks. It was all sorted within a day or so, so I don't see that we need to spend millions on something that, as people say, may happen every few decades at the most.

Alan Fry wrote:

Ameecher wrote:I doubt many people even remember it already. There were 13 delayed flights and 17 others had to stop for fuel elsewhere. Hardly worth the bother of building a fail-proof system.

Its the reasons why It happed, I mean due to "lack of fuel" is not a good excuse from a nation like this!

Unfortunately, there isn't an unlimited amount of fuel available, and sometimes, rarely, things like this will happen. That's just the way it is.

Alan Fry wrote:Fine then, but this does not help improve the airports image

It happened once. The first time in what, 50 years? It's unlikely to happen again for a couple of decades. The disruptions were minimal. It only lasted a few hours. The damage to the image of the airport can only be very limited. Certainly not massive enough to warrent spending millions of pounds on preventing it from happening again in 30 years.

Alan Fry wrote:They need to imporve the fuel infrastructure anyway because of growing demand!

Do they? Have fuel shortages been reported at other times? Are stocks frequently running low, with usage at high demand? Or maybe there's plenty of fuel coming through, and plenty to spare. Unless you actually know, you can't just say "they need to improve it".

It would, of course, be wise for them to ensure they can cope with future demand, but I'm sure that is something they've thought about.

Alan Fry, as I said before, this was the First time in the Pipelines 50 Year operation! That is a pretty good Record!