TUI Airways

[Jerry]

If that is the case will they base no5 because otherwise that will be a drop in capacity on a number of routes

A quick look at a Monday in July 2019 suggests its 4 based aircraft.

 

[Marko1]

A quick look at a Monday in July 2019 suggests its 4 based aircraft.

Ah but this time last year the schedule only pointed to 3 a/c. Plenty of time and plenty of releases of brochure editions to sort that out.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Just seen a post elsewhere saying that BRS will be all 737 from May 2019.

If the base in summer 19 is 4 x 737s instead of 2 x 757s and 2 x 737s as in summer 18, that would amount to a reduction in seat provision of 10.5%. Given that TUI has been boosting its BRS programme in recent years it seems odd that they then turn around and effectively reduce it.

If this is the case, and it's a big if because there is yet to be confirmation that that the base size will reduce in this way, it calls into question BRS's policy of relying on existing carriers for most of their growth.

When I spoke to a senior figure at the airport a few months ago the thought then was that when the two 757s leave BRS they would be replaced by either three 737-800s or two 737 MAX 10s. Things can change rapidly in aviation of course but, unless TUI believes it has overcooked its BRS programme, replacing the two 757s with just two 737-800s is a bit eyebrow-raising.

In summer 19 the 787s will operate six rotations each week compared with the four in summer 18 but that would not make much of a dent in the overall 10.5% seat reduction, if such reduction is on the cards.

 

[big g]

2x737-10, 2x737-800 will be based for S19

 

[superking]

A pity it could not get the B787 based all week. Well we can only hope seeing they taking our B757.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

2x737-10, 2x737-800 will be based for S19

Many thanks, big g.

A pity it could not get the B787 based all week. Well we can only hope seeing they taking our B757.

I don't know how many seats TUI will put into their B737 MAX 10s. According to one website this type of aircraft can take up to 230 seats. I'm not sure how many seats TUI's 757-200s have now. Seat Guru says 233 whereas WIKI says 221/223. I haven't flown in one of TUI's 757s for several years. When I did I thought the number of seats was around 235.

 

[Foxlimayankee]

It used to be 233/235, but were reduced a few years ago to create legroom rows. Now 221. There's one or two in the fleet with 223, but it's never sold higher than 221.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It used to be 233/235, but were reduced a few years ago to create legroom rows. Now 221. There's one or two in the fleet with 223, but it's never sold higher than 221.

Thank you for that, Foxlimyankee. Depending on the seat pitch that TUI adopts, the B737 MAX 10s ought not to be much of a reduction on the 757s then, if any reduction at all.

 

[Severn]

G-TUIH B788 has just departed to Orlando direct off a very wet Runway 09.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

G-TUIH B788 has just departed to Orlando direct off a very wet Runway 09.

I saw the 788 depart for Punta Cana yesterday - runway 27 then. It became airborne approximately opposite where I was standing which a later check with Google Earth revealed to be at a point over 350 metres from the end of the runway.

I know that your knowledge of such things is far greater than mine so is that a decent amount of runway to have spare and, furthermore, is it typical of the 788s at BRS on the PUJ and SFB routes? I don't think I've ever seen one take off at the airport before.

There was a briskish wind that seemed to be blowing more or less down the runway from the west and I don't know the loading yesterday. Is a headwind important in terms of getting an aircraft off the ground in a lesser runway distance than would be the case with a light wind as the requisite wind speed over the wings would presumably be attained more quickly, with the same engine power settings for the purpose of this hypothetical scenario?

 

[superking]

It went direct Punta cana yesterday as well from a dry and windy runway.

 

[Severn]

I saw the 788 depart for Punta Cana yesterday - runway 27 then. It became airborne approximately opposite where I was standing which a later check with Google Earth revealed to be at a point over 350 metres from the end of the runway.

I know that your knowledge of such things is far greater than mine so is that a decent amount of runway to have spare and, furthermore, is it typical of the 788s at BRS on the PUJ and SFB routes? I don't think I've ever seen one take off at the airport before.

There was a briskish wind that seemed to be blowing more or less down the runway from the west and I don't know the loading yesterday. Is a headwind important in terms of getting an aircraft off the ground in a lesser runway distance than would be the case with a light wind as the requisite wind speed over the wings would presumably be attained more quickly, with the same engine power settings for the purpose of this hypothetical scenario?

Before departure, the crew of an aircraft will calculate performance figures to ensure that a take-off can be safely operated given a number of criteria. Using either charts or these days computer software the take-off weight is determined and when it is confirmed that the weight is within the limits, it is necessary to find the take-off speeds and thrust setting corresponding to the weight. These figures are based on the aircraft weight (fuel, passengers, cargo etc), the runway elevation, length, slope, braking action, and the prevailing weather conditions.

The crew can also look at using different flap settings for take-off. The 787 can take-off with flaps in position 5, 15 & 20; generally speaking the higher flap settings (15, 20) will provide for a shorter take-off roll whereas a lower flap setting (5) will provide for a longer take-off roll.

You are correct when taking into account a headwind. Headwinds can decrease the take-off run significantly.

The fact that the aircraft is seen to depart with a relatively small amount of runway left doesn't necessarily mean that it's required the entire runway in the first place. Depending on the above criteria (aircraft weight, weather conditions etc), the runway length required for take-off may be quite a bit shorter than the total runway length available. The crew might then decide to use a lower-power engine setting meaning the take-off will use a larger portion of the runway. The reason companies favour using lower-power take-offs is to help reduce noise, engine wear, and maintenance costs. On that basis, a lightly loaded EZY A320 operating a short flight to EDI may decide to use a lower-power setting and therefore (for example) use up more of the runway in comparison to full EZY A319 operating a much longer sector like BRS-ATH whilst using a full-power setting.

 

[Marko1]

Cancun is going non stop today

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Cancun is going non stop today

Hopefully. Our son and his wife are on board and he sent me a message just before take-off saying that the captain said the intention is to fly non-stop but there is a possibility of an en-route fuel stop at Orlando if winds pick up.

The scheduled departure time is now 0930 (was 1000 for the past few weeks) but today's flight didn't become airborne until 1024. It turned right after take-off from 09 and routed south-west over Devon and overhead the coast between Hartland Point and Bude.

Aircraft is B787-8 G-TUIH (Mr Patmore) that is almost exactly three years old and operated the Punta Cana and Sanford, Orlando flights from BRS earlier this week.

Before departure, the crew of an aircraft will calculate performance figures to ensure that a take-off can be safely operated given a number of criteria. Using either charts or these days computer software the take-off weight is determined and when it is confirmed that the weight is within the limits, it is necessary to find the take-off speeds and thrust setting corresponding to the weight. These figures are based on the aircraft weight (fuel, passengers, cargo etc), the runway elevation, length, slope, braking action, and the prevailing weather conditions.

The crew can also look at using different flap settings for take-off. The 787 can take-off with flaps in position 5, 15 & 20; generally speaking the higher flap settings (15, 20) will provide for a shorter take-off roll whereas a lower flap setting (5) will provide for a longer take-off roll.

You are correct when taking into account a headwind. Headwinds can decrease the take-off run significantly.

The fact that the aircraft is seen to depart with a relatively small amount of runway left doesn't necessarily mean that it's required the entire runway in the first place. Depending on the above criteria (aircraft weight, weather conditions etc), the runway length required for take-off may be quite a bit shorter than the total runway length available. The crew might then decide to use a lower-power engine setting meaning the take-off will use a larger portion of the runway. The reason companies favour using lower-power take-offs is to help reduce noise, engine wear, and maintenance costs. On that basis, a lightly loaded EZY A320 operating a short flight to EDI may decide to use a lower-power setting and therefore (for example) use up more of the runway in comparison to full EZY A319 operating a much longer sector like BRS-ATH whilst using a full-power setting.

Thank you very much for that detailed explanation, Severn. It is much appreciated and I'm sure of interest to others who don't necessarily follow the fortunes of BRS or TUI closely, as well as to those of us who do.

 

[Marko1]

Before departure, the crew of an aircraft will calculate performance figures to ensure that a take-off can be safely operated given a number of criteria. Using either charts or these days computer software the take-off weight is determined and when it is confirmed that the weight is within the limits, it is necessary to find the take-off speeds and thrust setting corresponding to the weight. These figures are based on the aircraft weight (fuel, passengers, cargo etc), the runway elevation, length, slope, braking action, and the prevailing weather conditions.

The crew can also look at using different flap settings for take-off. The 787 can take-off with flaps in position 5, 15 & 20; generally speaking the higher flap settings (15, 20) will provide for a shorter take-off roll whereas a lower flap setting (5) will provide for a longer take-off roll.

You are correct when taking into account a headwind. Headwinds can decrease the take-off run significantly.

The fact that the aircraft is seen to depart with a relatively small amount of runway left doesn't necessarily mean that it's required the entire runway in the first place. Depending on the above criteria (aircraft weight, weather conditions etc), the runway length required for take-off may be quite a bit shorter than the total runway length available. The crew might then decide to use a lower-power engine setting meaning the take-off will use a larger portion of the runway. The reason companies favour using lower-power take-offs is to help reduce noise, engine wear, and maintenance costs. On that basis, a lightly loaded EZY A320 operating a short flight to EDI may decide to use a lower-power setting and therefore (for example) use up more of the runway in comparison to full EZY A319 operating a much longer sector like BRS-ATH whilst using a full-power setting.

Yes Severn I second what LY said. Very good explanation for technophobes like myself. Many thanks

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Cancun is going non stop today

It managed it. Just landed at Cancun at 1428 local time. Flight time of 10 hours 4 minutes.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Summer 2018

Looking at Mayfly for this week, it seems there will be only three TUI based aircraft, plus the part-based B788. I don't know when the fourth narrow body is due to arrive.

Tuesday is the first day of 'summer' with three B 757s shown operating the first group of flights - to Enfidha, Kos and Palma. The next group (in the afternoon) again all 757 goes to Zante, Santorini and Tenerife. The 757 to Santorini doesn't return but a B 737-800 arrives from Chania at teatime. For the rest of the week it's 2 x 757s and 1 x 737-800, plus the B788 until Sunday.

Wednesday sees the first B788 to Cape Verde (Sal) replacing the B757 that has been operating the route until now.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Cancun

Earlier this evening we had a FaceTime chat with our son and his wife who were on TOM650 to Cancun last Saturday.

When they checked in at BRS they were told the flight would go via MAN. However, once on board the captain said they were ging to try to reach Cancun non-stop. He explained that in recent weeks the strong head winds en route had meant a refuelling stop at MAN. He said that if necessary they would pop in to Orlando to top up. Our daughter-in-law found this very amusing because she said it sounded for all the world like a motorist saying they would have to nip into a petrol station to fill the car tank that was getting low.

They liked the B787 and said the captain was very informative and amusing with some of his comments. He pointed out a passing A380 at one point. They were seated near the back and there were some empty seats around them but they weren't sure how many unoccupied seats there were in total. A less than full flight might have helped with the non-stop routing I suppose.

 

[superking]

I see the Cancun went direct today. I could not help notice the aircraft was changed from early in the week. The aircraft started of as G.TUID and the aircraft used today is G TUII. Can only think it was changed in Sanford yesterday (Friday).

 

[TheLocalYokel]

A little bird told me today that passengers on tomorrow's Sal flight can look forward to a scattering of Pixie Dust on the aircraft. Will be a first for BRS.