TUI Airways

[Aviador]

So when does the Cancun require a fuel stop, is it when the Jetstream is ramped up?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

So when does the Cancun require a fuel stop, is it when the Jetstream is ramped up?

The headwinds have been very strong at times this summer, I've been told. I don't know whether they have been unusually strong or what is the correlation with the jet stream. What seems self-evident is that Cancun is at the extreme range for a B 787-8 from BRS.

If an outbound fuel-stop becomes a regular occurrence it remains to be seen how TUI will react. They must have done some detailed calculations before beginning the route so perhaps won't be surprised that there will be occasions when taking on fuel is necessary.

When TUI operated a summer BRS-CUN up to 2014 with B 767-300 aircraft an outbound fuel stop at MAN was a weekly event. They operated in this way for several summers.

TUI's B 787-operated BRS-SFB (Sanford, Florida) seems to have no problem with non-stop outbound flights. Neither did their B 767-300s when they operated to SFB each week in summer.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

From what I hear it wasn't a tech stop. Was for crew reasons

 

[TheLocalYokel]

From what I hear it wasn't a tech stop. Was for crew reasons

Thank you for that although I did put a slight proviso in my original post when I mused that it might have been a fuel stop.

When BRS published its draft master plan in 2006 they reported that Boeing had told the airport that the 787 (no mention of types then) could operate 9,000 km from the BRS runway. I think that BRS-CUN is around 8,000 km, perhaps a bit less and obviously depending on routing.

In the final version of the master plan it was reported that Boeing had indicated that the 787 'would have the capability to serve destinations on the west coast of America and Cape Town, removing any effective constraint on the long haul market'.

It seems, as is sometimes the case, that the capabilities of an operational version of an aircraft differ from the drawing board version and perhaps the 787 might not be quite as proficient from the BRS runway as was originally hoped.

 

[big g]

From what I hear it wasn't a tech stop. Was for crew reasons

Correct, the original Captain fell ill in the morning so the quickest option was to go Via MAN to pick up a replacement. The flight was originally planned to operate direct to CUN.

A family member was on the flight and they said the captain made an announcement stating the above.

 

[Marko1]

Dreamliner on its way to ema rather than going direct to cancun again. I wonder what the reason is today ?

 

[Jerry]

EMA? That's odd.

 

[Tinkerman]

TOM's issues with this route, whether operational/tech or capability related are far from great.

 

[User001]

Likely chose EMA over MAN as MAN has been fog bound most of the morning so probably didn't want to incur further delays.

 

[Jerry]

I'm assuming they went there to refuel? If so i find it perplexing that they just don't refuel at CWL as it's next door to BRS and a fully loaded and fuelled 787 would have no problem with range to Cancun from CWL's runway and it would save them flying all the way up to MAN or EMA this time.

 

[big g]

TOM's issues with this route, whether operational/tech or capability related are far from great.

It's not really it's only had 2 tech stops and 1 crew stop due to sickness. Yesterday was due to the air pressure in Bristol, if your a pilot you'd understand the effect it can have on aircraft.


As the odds stand, you have more chance going direct to CUN. We don't see people saying the TCX JSI-BRS rounte is not great as that sometimes requires a tech stop due runway performance.

 

[Jerry]

It's not really it's only had 2 tech stops and 1 crew stop due to sickness. Yesterday was due to the air pressure in Bristol, if your a pilot you'd understand the effect it can have on aircraft.


As the odds stand, you have more chance going direct to CUN. We don't see people saying the TCX JSI-BRS rounte is not great as that sometimes requires a tech stop due runway performance.

It depends in the end if those diverts are costing TOM money or not.

 

[Jerry]

Would TOM be able to operate the 787 from BRS in the winter? Or could they have problems?

 

[andrewgreen]

Would TOM be able to operate the 787 from BRS in the winter? Or could they have problems?

It would be easier in the winter , generally lower pressure and also lower temperatures help engine performance

 

[Jerry]

It would be easier in the winter , generally lower pressure and also lower temperatures help engine performance

Ok. I'm just curious why they haven't carried on the long haul into the winter and was wondering if winter weather could've been a factor.

 

[andrewgreen]

Curious indeed but i would imagine its just a case of higher demand in the summer ? both Orlando and Cancun are more summer destinations

 

[Jerry]

Yeah but there could be other destinations like the Caribbean or Goa they could look at.

 

[Aviador]

I'm assuming they went there to refuel? If so i find it perplexing that they just don't refuel at CWL as it's next door to BRS and a fully loaded and fuelled 787 would have no problem with range to Cancun from CWL's runway and it would save them flying all the way up to MAN or EMA this time.

Surely Thomson are missing a trick here. If there is a strong likelihood a tech-stop will be required for departing flights from BRS due to performance reasons, surely a 'scheduled' stop in CWL would make more sense than a un-scheduled fuel stop at Manchester or East Midlands? Thomson's could then sell holidays from both BRS and CWL airports improving the profile of both airports in the region. I understand there is a possibility of incurring additional charges but surely these kind of issues can be agreed by all parties beforehand?

 

[forest1979]

Maybe we should listen to those in the know...
Based on an overall season it's not that bad really is it? TUI let's not forget took delivery of the Dreamliner in 2013 and has taken all this time to get it to BRS. In that time they have surely calculated and taken everything into account before deciding to give it a go... more to the point it's seems to have been a success even with a couple of detours. I've had the same flying from BHX and going to MAN.. it happenes and not that uncommon. I'm personally not keen on a CWL stop just to boost the profile of local competition.. they chose BRS and could have gone to CWL.. can you imagine "Buckle in everyone, we will be in the air for 2 minutes and landing again "

Having worked and lived in CUN, I would definitely say it is very much a winter destination and have wondered why they don't continue it year round.. maybe summer was to test it?

Let's look forward to 2018.. increase in LH destinations and the Dreamliner in BRS for 4 days.. all positive.

 

[Jerry]

Surely Thomson are missing a trick here. If there is a strong likelihood a tech-stop will be required for departing flights from BRS due to performance reasons, surely a 'scheduled' stop in CWL would make more sense than a un-scheduled fuel stop at Manchester or East Midlands? Thomson's could then sell holidays from both BRS and CWL airports improving the profile of both airports in the region. I understand there is a possibility of incurring additional charges but surely these kind of issues can be agreed by all parties beforehand?

Passenger wise they don't really need to stop at CWL as plenty of Welsh will go to them over the bridge (sadly for CWL). Only long haul that TOM seems interested in from CWL is Caribbean.
Technically wise I just wonder if there is a reason why TOM go all the way up to MAN to refuel and not CWL which is practically next door and has no problem with the range. To me it seems odd.