So, Ian, why was it built like that for, didn't anyone check the specifications before completion, so It could have been corrected. But now it's too late to correct it.... Andyc
 
I am sure that any aircraft can land, but can it navigate the taxiways and can they be serviced at stand or gate? Then is the runway fit for enabling take off?

We have the biggest heavies up to A380, C5 and B744 but as mentioned, A346 is a problem to the day of final grounding leaving perhaps a ? over the B777x or A350k and any future variant assuming high capacity remains fashionable for air travel. Maybe the future is with flocks of A220 or ERJ type at high frequency keeping the runway busy and revenues flowing, any further thoughts welcome on this or more relevant thread.
 
So, Ian, why was it built like that for, didn't anyone check the specifications before completion, so It could have been corrected. But now it's too late to correct it.... Andyc

BHX taxiway radii conform to ICAO specifications. There are one or two aircraft types that are too long to use these taxiways.

Kevin
 
Not attempting to be awkward but if ICAO specifications have been met then a good many airports exceed them and perhaps a nod given to do so, no names as loose accusations can prove costly.
 
So, Ian, why was it built like that for, didn't anyone check the specifications before completion, so It could have been corrected. But now it's too late to correct it.... Andyc

The A340-600 (the longest variant that has trouble at BHX) didn't first fly until April 2001 - BHX and it's taxiways were built long before then!

With several movements per day, airports like Heathrow had to rebuild taxiways in order to compete with its competitors (Paris, Frankfurt, etc).

With so few (if any) airlines operating them to BHX, it made no sense for BHX to rebuild its taxiways. Even now with so few wide body scheduled flights using BHX it STILL doesn't make financial sense to rebuild taxiways to accommodate just one flight per day.

The A340-600 was an incredibly long aircraft and I suspect the A350-1000 and B777X could both use BHX without a problem. IF they are too big for the taxiways however, the airline could always choose to operate more flights on smaller aircraft. For example, three of Emirates 773's provide 4% more seats the two A380's per day.

Take Qatar for instance. As much as I like the A350, and as much as I'd love to see it regularly at BHX, going 10x weekly and eventually double daily on the B787 would provide more choice for passengers and do more to help BHX grow their overall passenger numbers than Qatar upgrading to a 7x weekly A350.
 
So, Ian, why was it built like that for, didn't anyone check the specifications before completion, so It could have been corrected. But now it's too late to correct it.... Andyc

Your could argue that Airbus could have checked ICAO specifications also anyway pretty irrelevant as there's probably never been any chance of someone (Virgin ?) operating the A340 600 from BHX and if they had I'm sure BHX would would have stumped up just like they did with the £1m triple air bridge for Emirates and that looks like coming back to bite them.
 
Not attempting to be awkward but if ICAO specifications have been met then a good many airports exceed

It's quite possible that BHX's taxiways exceed the ICAO regulations as I seem to remember extra fillets being added to the inner edges of some turns in order to accomodate the A380. If an airline was to propose a daily service with an aircraft that required further work to the taxiways then I could see the airport undertaking that work. But, for occasional flights it doesn't make economic sense.

Kevin
 
well if Emirates do revert to the 77W there is potential for much greater cargo uplift...I'm sure CL44 will be delighted
You can also safely assume that bears do go potty in the woods!

Whilst this would certainly be an advantage to me work wise, it is a very drastic way to go back to the old days!
 
No reason to doubt it but will take it with a pinch of salt that 2 x A380's per day when you have Tim himself going on about the days of the 380 being over and them ramping up the retirements.
 
No reason to doubt it but will take it with a pinch of salt that 2 x A380's per day when you have Tim himself going on about the days of the 380 being over and them ramping up the retirements.
They are hoping to get all the ones that weren't already due for retirement before the pandemic back in the air by 2022 as things stand...
 
Routes Online this morning reports revised schedule of 1 x A380 daily from 1st August increasing to 2 x daily from 1st September.
 

Upload Media

Upgrade Your Account

Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.



Forums4aiports
Subscribe

NEW - Profile Posts

9 trips in 9 days done 70 miles walked and over 23-00 photos taken with a large number taken at 20mph or above. Heavy rain on 1 day only
5 trips done and 45 miles walked,. Also the RAF has had 4 F35B Lightning follow me yesterday and today....
My plans got altered slightly as one of the minibus companies had to cancel 3 trips and refunded me but will be getting nice discount when I rebook them.
wondering why on my "holidays" I choose to get up 2 hours earlier than when going to work. 6 trips in 6 days soon coming up with 3 more days to sort out

Trending Hashtags

Advertisement

Back
Top Bottom
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks useful features of our website. For the best site experience please disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock