Route Development & Rumours

[LeedsPilot]

MAS737
I dont know if you are in the industry, but if not I would like to point out that the take off distance required has lot of corrections to be made to it. airfield altitude, temperature and obstacles have to be factored, so the numbers out of the book are only the starting point for your take off calculations and due to Lbia being 680 ft Amsl and having the chevin as an obstacle on ruway 32 our performance charts for an A300 show significant take off weight reductions. Then of course we have to deduct for high teperatures as well. Runway 14 would be much better as no obstructions to worry about however airfield altitude and temperature still have to be factored.
All take off calculations assume an engine failure after V1 (decision speed)
Apologies if you have knowledge of the subject but it would seem to me a B767 going transatlantic would be restricted unless runway 14 was in use.

No worries A300boy! I am knowledgable in the subject and understand that takeoff distance varies with a large range of factors (e.g. weight, altitude/air pressure, temperature, wind, runway slope, runway condition etc.) 5600ft is the takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER at MTOW at sea level ISA+15 (30 degrees C temperature). In reality the actual takeoff distance from LBA would be close to 5600ft at MTOW as the altitude is higher but the temperature is lower so . Don't forget that the B762ER has a range of 6590nm so flights to the caribbean of ~3800nm shouldn't be a problem, nor should Florida (~3600nm). As you have rightly stated, runway 14 would be better for takeoff, but with the 767 the problem is actually worse for landing, where runway 14 with its steep 3.5 degree glidepath and shorter landing distance create potential risks.

 

[a300boy]

MAS737
Totally agree with your post !
Our performance charts say we could land on runway 14 at max landing weight with a 10kt tailwind and a wet runway. I would not like to try it and would not like to see any other large aircrft do so either. I just hope we get some more concrete sooner than later.

 

[LeedsPilot]

MAS737
Totally agree with your post !
Our performance charts say we could land on runway 14 at max landing weight with a 10kt tailwind and a wet runway. I would not like to try it and would not like to see any other large aircrft do so either. I just hope we get some more concrete sooner than later.

+1!! The short runway length WILL hold the airport back in the future if it is not sorted out (which hopefully will be included with the work to do with 'the masterplan'). A longer runway would allow long haul routes to be developed when capacity was there. I'm not in the industry by the way but a budding airline pilot!

 

[jason1-11]

[offtopic][/offtopic]

So does anyone one what is the largest aircraft that can operate out of Leeds without restriction on weight? My guess would be the 319?

Answers on a postcard.

 

[ls27]

There was talk some time ago about a possible flight to LBA fom Mad with Air Nostrom, well it looks as though the flight will be to MAN now according to UK Airport Nwes site.

 

[cmj]

I see that with the demise of Air Southwest FlyBe are now starting a Manchester - Newquay (4 x weekly). Because of that I can't imagine we'll see anything other than maybe Jet2 summer flights on that route from LBA.

 

[White Heather]

I don't think that necessarily follows. Air South West operated to Newquay from both MAN and LBA, usually via Bristol, but if the demand is there from LBA, and there is an aircraft available to operate the route, then never say never. I would have thought such a route was better suited to Flybe on a Dash 8 than it is to Jet2 on a 737, but I guess we will have to wait and see whether Jet2 are interested in resurrecting the route given there is no competition now.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

The Newquay route was loss making from LBA and was pulled as such. The Jet2 route was never regular enough to enable it to be a good alternative to the car. Convenience is the nature of these flights. If you are going to Newquay for a week, it is always going to be far more convenient to drive there, as you will have the car with you. For a couple of days, the train/plane is going to be more desirable. Jet2 will never make it convenient, and Air Southwest did not attract enough passengers to make it viable.

It is also important to mention that BMIBaby also currently service Newquay from Manchester. This is being dropped in October due to BMIBaby leaving Manchester. I think FlyBe 4 times a week from Manchester is just about spot on. LBA will not attract the same number of passengers on the Newquay as Manchester and will therefore not be able to sustain a decent level of service, nor does it have an airline capable of providing such a service who are willing to do so. I would say it is case closed.

 

[michael]

For what it's worth I'd have thought LBA would be better concentrating on increasing the frequency to at least daily to Exeter with FlyBe rather than Newquay, unless the two can be combined somehow

 

[Bigman]

I personally think that FlyBe should revamp their services into LBA. They should do a daily NQY-EXE-LBA, and drop ABZ, which is now very well covered by Eastern.

 

[markietg]

1st NOV-3rd Nov LBA-ABZ-LBA Eastern=£197 Flybe=£97 I'd rather like to keep Flybe on this route Bigman.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Aside from the obvious competition advantage to retaining FlyBe on ABZ, it is simply NOT viable to have a flight from Newquay to Exeter to Leeds. NQY-BRS-LBA is not viable with a 50 seat aircraft. NQY-EXE-LBA certainly would not be viable with an 80 seat aircraft. We need to remain sensible when it comes to short haul routes. FlyBe could certainly have a larger presence in LBA but it would have to be on reasonably good routes. I think, personally, they could and should replace BMI at LBA. I even believe that they would be able to do so without having to base any A/C at LBA. It is not enough to suggest that FlyBe should revamp their services - the whole domestic and short haul market needs a wind of change.

 

[Bigman]

Surely if NQY-BRS-LBA was not viable, Air South West would have canned it ages ago. Aslo, have you tried to get a train to Newquay recently??? It is a hell of a distance and usually involves at least 1 change, so definitely not desirable.

 

[Aviador]

With train fairs expected to rise as much as 18% for the second year running and with far from desirable rolling stock, I would say Newquay by air is more than viable. Newquay is the surfing capital of Britain and it is renowned for it's excellent beeches and night life. Many people have family and friends in the area, so unless you want to spend several hours on a train, your only fast option of getting down their, vice versa is by air.

 

[whoshotjimmi]

Air Southwest no longer exist. I think that is the easy reply to that.

The current FlyBe flight from EXE-LBA-ABZ caters for all 3 markets. The flight will have an amount of passenger flying from EXE-LBA and then a number who are flying EXE-ABZ. Additionally, those who leave the flight at LBA free up space for passengers wishing to travel LBA-ABZ. This will be the same when Eastern start up the BRS-LBA-ABZ.

All of these sectors will have decent numbers, but will not fill an aircraft nor justify a single aircraft on the route. I know pax used to change at Bristol for Plymouth and Newquay flights from various airports (a little bit hub and spoke) but they clearly didn't generate enough pax to make that portion profitable. Plymouth airport is closing down for crying out loud.

I agree that Newquay is reasonably difficult to reach via train, but the fact is that you can, a number of times a day. And, if you book early enough, significantly cheaper. For a week long break, I honestly believe people will always favour having the car with them. But like I said, for a few days, the plane/train is better. And that is why I think the FlyBe flight from MAN is spot on - cheap and reasonably regular. NQY is quite an extreme example of a leisure route. Other domestic routes are probably less leisure oriented but, regardless, the key to domestic travel is convenience. 3 times a day or more. Otherwise, there are plenty of other options.

This sectoring of flights through LBA is definitely the best way to keep the more marginal routes. Having a flight between LBA and Durham, for example, is just a waste of capacity. It is the same having a flight between NQY and BRS. It is a wasted flight. And they lose money. A sector flight between NQY and EXE would be suicidal.

 

[User0001]

As with all route development, there are things that are profitable when oil prices are lower and the economy is stronger than is the case today. Mainland domestic services are more sensitive than most to these things because ultimately the car and train are alternatives. In the last few years, prices have gone up because of oil (and APD) and demand has gone down so its unsurprising that the result has been a huge scaling back in intra-UK services. If conditions improve over time than things will be different again.

 

[Jordan-34092]

Re: Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

If not emirates, i would say etihdad, only thing with them though is they operate from Abu Dhabi. But at least there would be onward connections too.

Also user001 you are right about that. i know someone who flies from MAN with emirates to Dubai and he told me the only reason he does is because of the connections to different parts of the globe, if there wasn't the connections he wouldn't fly with them.

 

[pilot_737]

Re: Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

Unfortunatley I just can't see Monarch at LBA. Monarch have always been the 'airline in the background' for me and tend to operate from the much larger airports around the UK; Manchester, Luton, Gatwick and Birmingham to name.... well nearly all of them .

On a serious note however, I can only feel that LBA just isn't 'big' enough to tempt Monarch. They are too much of a, dare I say it, 'fragile' airline to put themselves into an Airport that is nearly at full capacity and has more problems than positives. They are much more comfortable at the bigger airports within the UK, of which they can attract a higher proportion of passengers, In a few years, maybe LBA could be the next best thing for Monarch, but not at the moment....

Saying all this however, from recent news they are moving into more UK airports, although I can't see LBA being one of them. I can see; BRS, EMA, NEW, GLA being the next big thing for Monarch, LBA just doesn't have passenger numbers that these airports have, with LBA only just reaching 3Million and the rest being 4Million+..

Fragile?!!?!?!

Monarch, established 1967, have 30 aircraft with 7137 seats and last year carried 5,794,702 passengers. They have carried in and around 6m pax over the past 4/5 years. They have bases at 4 of the top 7 busiest airports in the UK all carying around 9m paz upwards, as well as Dublin.

Jet2 have 36 aircraft (including the charter LP) with 6243 seats and carried 3,338,921 last year, with a highest of 3.8m. (Granted last years figures won't include the new aircraft added this year).

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Re: Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

Dubai

I remember watching a programme on tv four or five years ago that featured Dubai, concentrating on the massive leisure complexes that were being constructed at the time.

The programme forecast that by around 2015 Dubai would be the biggest single leisure destination in the world and that flights would be as common from the UK and Western Europe to Dubai as they were then and still are to the likes of the Spanish Costas and other mainstream sun destinations.

Well, that isn't likely to happen within the timescale forecast but it might at some point in the future.

For the moment I agree that Dubai's Airport's main purpose is as a staging post for onward flights to the likes of Asia and Australasia, though it is also an important leisure and business destination in its own right. Having taken advantage of Emirates via Dubai to Australia last year, and again later this year, I can confirm the vast numbers of people who use the airport at any time of the day or night.

In 2010 it handled over 47 million passengers (expected to rise to over 50 mppa in 2011) and is currently the world's 12th busiest airport by passenger numbers and the 7th busiest by cargo, something of course that is extremely important.

Dubai Airport can currently handle 60 mppa which is expected to rise to 90 mppa by 2018.

Don't forget too that the nearby Al Maktoum International Airport has opened for cargo traffic and when passenger traffic comes on stream the airport is intended to eventually handle the mind-boggling figure of 160 mppa.

Huge sums have been poured into Dubai's airport facilities and they must be looking for a return on investment at some point in the future. Even if Emirates expands its fleet as previously announced which will include 90 A380s there should still be plenty of room at the two airports for other airlines to fly in leisure passengers from LBA and any other airport you might care to name BUT that isn't going to happen for a very long time unless the world manages a sensationally quick economic recovery and then embarks on economic growth around the globe at a previously unheard of pace.

 

[tleeds]

Re: Rumours about new destinations or airlines?

Unfortunatley I just can't see Monarch at LBA. Monarch have always been the 'airline in the background' for me and tend to operate from the much larger airports around the UK; Manchester, Luton, Gatwick and Birmingham to name.... well nearly all of them .

On a serious note however, I can only feel that LBA just isn't 'big' enough to tempt Monarch. They are too much of a, dare I say it, 'fragile' airline to put themselves into an Airport that is nearly at full capacity and has more problems than positives. They are much more comfortable at the bigger airports within the UK, of which they can attract a higher proportion of passengers, In a few years, maybe LBA could be the next best thing for Monarch, but not at the moment....

Saying all this however, from recent news they are moving into more UK airports, although I can't see LBA being one of them. I can see; BRS, EMA, NEW, GLA being the next big thing for Monarch, LBA just doesn't have passenger numbers that these airports have, with LBA only just reaching 3Million and the rest being 4Million+..

Fragile?!!?!?!

Monarch, established 1967, have 30 aircraft with 7137 seats and last year carried 5,794,702 passengers. They have carried in and around 6m pax over the past 4/5 years. They have bases at 4 of the top 7 busiest airports in the UK all carying around 9m paz upwards, as well as Dublin.

Jet2 have 36 aircraft (including the charter LP) with 6243 seats and carried 3,338,921 last year, with a highest of 3.8m. (Granted last years figures won't include the new aircraft added this year).

The reason I opted for fragile, was for a range of many reasons..

I can't help but feel, if you want a Charter Flight/Holiday, or a holiday package the vast majority of people think of Thomson or Thomas Cook. Because Monarch is not as well known as other rival companies it puts them at a somewhat disadvantage from the start.
In addition to this, who operates Scheduled and Charter flights together..? It didn't work for Thomsonfly and it didn't work for the short period that Thomas Cook tried it either. My Travel Lite was a failure, and so you ask yourself, is it working for Monarch?
Well for a company that has been running for as many years as you say, 44 years in-fact, you would expect passenger numbers to be a lot higher. In increasingly difficult times, an airline has to make sure it's product is actually understandable by the customers and so realistically you are either a charter airline, or a low-cost one, mixing the two together isn't going to work.
Jet2 being only what 9 years old, has more aircraft, being operated from 'smaller' airports than where Monarch use, and is carrying nearly the same amount of passengers... it doesn't add-up for Monarch.

Recently it's passenger numbers have continued to fall and so have the profits. It attempted to become a low cost carrier in 2010(?) when it changed its slogan to "The Low Fare Airline That Cares". In past experience, Charter Flights are always a lot more expensive than scheduled flights, which actually make up just less than a quarter of Monarch's total destinations.

Their indecisiveness on what to do with its fleet is starting to bug me as well. They initially opted for a Boeing fleet, with 737's, 757's and 767's. They then opted for the Airbus A320 family and have since effectively cleared their Boeing fleet with only 3 remaining Boeing's (757). They now have opted for another Boeing fleet but are now, after cancelling their order for the 787Dreamliner, which would've replaced their A300's, showing everyone how indecisive they are. The orders are being rumoured to be switched with the Boeing 737NG family... need I say how confusing they are..

Their reclusiveness to give routes a try annoys me. They have attempted on numerous occasions to commence low-cost operations from Blackpool, Aberdeen and Newquay by basing an aircraft in Malaga. They seem unable to compete with other airlines and, with the Low-Cost market nearly taken up and the Charter Market shrinking, I see no-where for Monarch to go unfortunately, and having used them only twice in my life, and not had any bad experiences with them, I wouldn't like to see them go...