Route Development & Rumours

[White Heather]

Towards the later end of PIA ops at LBA each week rumours were circulating that they were flying the B777 into the airport so i used to always pop to the view point, but it never happened.

It wasn't just a rumour. There was a scheduled start date for the 777 which had been jointly announced by the airport and PIA. But instead, they suspended the route and our PK775 became a flight to MAN.

 

[ls27]

Remembering back to that time, I think it was something to do with the bogie wheels of the 777's undercarriage. There had been problems that caused scuffing to an airport's taxi way.
I did understood later, that the problem was with thee 300 type and not 200

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Remembering back to that time, I think it was something to do with the bogie wheels of the 777's undercarriage. There had been problems that caused scuffing to an airport's taxi way.
I did understood later, that the problem was with thee 300 type and not 200

Id love to know definitively what the reason was.

 

[michael]

Remembering back to that time, I think it was something to do with the bogie wheels of the 777's undercarriage. There had been problems that caused scuffing to an airport's taxi way.
I did understood later, that the problem was with thee 300 type and not 200

I think the issue was because of them being a tri-axle configuration. A330-200 & 300, A350-900's, B787-8, B787-9 and 787-10 are all twin axle configuration, A350-1000 a tri-axle like the B777's.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I think the issue was because of them being a tri-axle configuration. A330-200 & 300, A350-900's, B787-8, B787-9 and 787-10 are all twin axle configuration, A350-1000 a tri-axle like the B777's.

But was that really the reason/only reason? I seem to remember someone saying PIA tried a landing at LBA on a simulator and the results werent favourable. Whatever the reason, you would think it must have been mentioned at one of the committee meetings and therefore be minuted.

 

[White Heather]

But was that really the reason/only reason? I seem to remember someone saying PIA tried a landing at LBA on a simulator and the results werent favourable.

Perhaps the pilots that tried a simulated landing, if indeed that is true, were those who had faked qualifications that led to their ban from EU skies! Besides, it seems rather odd to announce the use of an aircraft before checking to ensure that its use was viable at LBA.
My understanding was that the 777 200 would have been fine, but they didn't have the type available. Only the 300, which is bigger.and has the troublesome triple wheel set up that might have been an issue when turning at the end if runway 32. That said, we had plenty if 747s with 4 axle set up, and the odd DC10 with 3 although they are shorter than the 777 300 so probably less if an issue.

 

[Finger66]

Hearing elsewhere this might be an A321 rather than A330. Anyone else heard this and can A321 reach ISB? Better fit of a/c in my eyes and may mean better frequency if true. But wouldn't make the same sense freight wise though

 

[White Heather]

Hearing elsewhere this might be an A321 rather than A330. Anyone else heard this and can A321 reach ISB? Better fit of a/c in my eyes and may mean better frequency if true. But wouldn't make the same sense freight wise though

No I heard A330 200. However, a more frequent A321 LR service would make more sense really until such time as the airport can better handle wide bodies. It makes less impact on the terminal and less need for freight. Other airlines have used A321s (Air Blue?) so no reason why Jordan Aviation can't, although the eiephant in the room is that according to fleet listings Jordan Aviation dont have any A321s! Just A320s, A330 200s, 777s and 737s.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

I

No I heard A330 200. However, a more frequent A321 LR service would make more sense really until such time as the airport can better handle wide bodies. It makes less impact on the terminal and less need for freight. Other airlines have used A321s (Air Blue?) so no reason why Jordan Aviation can't.

I know baggage bins are an option with narrow bodied aircraft but would have thought loose loading is more likely- so why the rumoured training? The amount of baggage these passengers bring I would have thought an A321 would struggle with the sheer volume.

 

[LBAYORKIE]

Perhaps the pilots that tried a simulated landing, if indeed that is true, were those who had faked qualifications that led to their ban from EU skies! Besides, it seems rather odd to announce the use of an aircraft before checking to ensure that its use was viable at LBA.
My understanding was that the 777 200 would have been fine, but they didn't have the type available. Only the 300, which is bigger.and has the troublesome triple wheel set up that might have been an issue when turning at the end if runway 32. That said, we had plenty if 747s with 4 axle set up, and the odd DC10 with 3 although they are shorter than the 777 300 so probably less if an issue.

As I said the reason must surely have been given at a committee meeting. It was a big setback so you would have thought the reason would have been confirmed. As WH says other wide bodies with triple bogies operated from Leeds in the past.

Perhaps the pilots that tried a simulated landing, if indeed that is true, were those who had faked qualifications that led to their ban from EU skies! Besides, it seems rather odd to announce the use of an aircraft before checking to ensure that its use was viable at LBA.
My understanding was that the 777 200 would have been fine, but they didn't have the type available. Only the 300, which is bigger.and has the troublesome triple wheel set up that might have been an issue when turning at the end if runway 32. That said, we had plenty if 747s with 4 axle set up, and the odd DC10 with 3 although they are shorter than the 777 300 so probably less if an issue.

All good points but the official reason must surely have been given at a committee meeting.

 

[White Heather]

I
I know baggage bins are an option with narrow bodied aircraft but would have thought loose loading is more likely- so why the rumoured training? The amount of baggage these passengers bring I would have thought an A321 would struggle with the sheer volume.

Well as they don't have any A321s it looks rather unlikely.
Elsewhere, I just saw an item saying that Turkish and it's low cost arm, AndaloluJet are to expand their international destinations. To do so the latter is acquiring a further 737MAX and an A321NEO, either if which would be perfect for a Leeds to Istanbul route. Some may recall last year the CEO of Turkish specifically quoted LBA as an airport they would like to serve.

 

[White Heather]

As I said the reason must surely have been given at a committee meeting. It was a big setback so you would have thought the reason would have been confirmed. As WH says other wide bodies with triple bogies operated from Leeds in the past.
All good points but the official reason must surely have been given at a committee meeting.

If the official reason had ever been given back in 2014, or since, I would have posted it. No reason has ever been given by LBA and at the time, Bridgepoint's management team said they were taken back by the decision and had no idea why PIA had done what they did at such short notice. Whether they ever got a straight answer or not later, they never gave an official reason to the Consultative Committee and of course the management team changed completely when Bridgepoint sold up to AMP Capital.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

PIA were 3 a week to start but then reduced to 2 per week. Be great to see the A330 at leeds if all comes true but once again it does bring my argument into the spot light regarding the current terminal, even with the extension as passenger figures increase at busy times the terminal may be at bursting point, saying that if the current terminal was reconfigured too this may not be an issue. Please dont all shout at once, it is a forum haha

I would hazard a guess that LBA would work with PIA and offer a time of day that was "quiet" rather than busy. Early evening would be the time I would be looking at - arrival 530pm, departure 7pm. That would be a nice timed flight as in peak summer majority of Jet2 stuff is well on it's way, Ryanair has come and gone, and the ramp is pretty empty. Winter - different story.

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

Elsewhere, I just saw an item saying that Turkish and it's low cost arm, AndaloluJet are to expand their international destinations. To do so the latter is acquiring a further 737MAX and an A321NEO, either if which would be perfect for a Leeds to Istanbul route. Some may recall last year the CEO of Turkish specifically quoted LBA as an airport they would like to serve.

Always said Turkish Airlines would be a very ideal suit for the regional airports in the UK. Their ability to offer a wide varying destination list throughout the Middle East, and with ability to offer something onto the Far East also, ensures that they'd fill the aircraft with connections. And it would suit nicely for the airport.

 

[White Heather]

I would hazard a guess that LBA would work with PIA and offer a time of day that was "quiet" rather than busy. Early evening would be the time I would be looking at - arrival 530pm, departure 7pm. That would be a nice timed flight as in peak summer majority of Jet2 stuff is well on it's way, Ryanair has come and gone, and the ramp is pretty empty. Winter - different story.

Which is when PIAs A310s were scheduled to arrive.

 

[northsouth]

From my memory as stated above no official reason was given but there were rumours, conversations at that time that the A310 operation to the uk was marginal in terms of operating & making any money, also they were planning to withdraw the A310 from long haul operations and at the time towards the end of operations there were only x2 long hall A310’s operational AP -BDZ & AP-BEG, these were withdrawn from use not long after the route closed, as stated they did continue with A310 operations but to shorter destinations.


Also again from memory PIA did try and close the route a couple of years earlier but there was a complaints from the travel agency’s in Bradford so they decided to continue with this route.

 

[ls27]

Perhaps there was a bit of pressure from the other side of the Pennines.

 

[White Heather]

Perhaps there was a bit of pressure from the other side of the Pennines.

I think that is a certainty!

 

[Sherburnflyer92]

This is why I think TK would be better for LBA. Able to offer so much coverage of Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, India alone. That wouldn’t detract from their MAN programme.

 

[White Heather]

From my memory as stated above no official reason was given but there were rumours, conversations at that time that the A310 operation to the uk was marginal in terms of operating & making any money, also they were planning to withdraw the A310 from long haul operations and at the time towards the end of operations there were only x2 long hall A310’s operational AP -BDZ & AP-BEG, these were withdrawn from use not long after the route closed, as stated they did continue with A310 operations but to shorter destinations.


Also again from memory PIA did try and close the route a couple of years earlier but there was a complaints from the travel agency’s in Bradford so they decided to continue with this route.

I seem to recall that the Bradford Lord Mayor at the time, got involved and they continued the route. I think that it was the A310 that was the problem, being so inneficient and unreliable that it ate into any profits being made. Loads were good. If they hadn't been theres no way they would have even considered the 777.