COVENTRY

[Trill_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Fried_Chicken

It's going to be a quiet night at Coventry since Emerald's AOC has been revoked by the CAA & they operated the majority of the night cargo flights (unless somebody else steps in to operate them)

FC

Two 748s parked nose in on thursday last. Any vehicles parked around them or work being done on them like maintenace? Rumour has it they will be trying to regain the AOC?

[Trill_Flyer]

748's Parked

Originally Posted by cvt person

New north side apron now in use. It had two 748's parked on it on Saturday.

Yep its in use alright. Just ain't moving at all at the moment or the Shorts 3-60's excluding the one already in bits near the Bravo Apron.

[cvt person]

With regard to Emerald aircraft I understand that there are 2 748's and 5 360's at Coventry but of the 360's 4 were already grounded before recent events.

[Flap15Geardown]

Originally Posted by SeamusCVT

With all due respect, the same could be said of a lot of airports around the world, not just CVT.

Birmingham International Airport for example is capable of handling 12 million per annum, yet last year was one of it's best for years in terms of passenger numbers with 9.6 million pax. Therefore the current setup there is coping easily, so why would there be the need of a second runway and 30 million passenger terminal airport?

Why the need for a second runway?? Have you ever tried getting out of BHX during the peak? During the morning rush it can easily be 30mins from push back to airbourne. Stick in a second runway in for the smaller stuff and maybe we can hit the 15mins taxy time built into the slots

[Trill_Flyer]

Emerald 748 &shorts 3-60's

Originally Posted by cvt person

With regard to Emerald aircraft I understand that there are 2 748's and 5 360's at Coventry but of the 360's 4 were already grounded before recent events.

Anybody working on these? What about their hangar it is still in use? If you look on Blackpool Spoters site there are a number of 748's there.

Are these impounded or just parked up?

[30W]

Why the need for a second runway?? Have you ever tried getting out of BHX during the peak? During the morning rush it can easily be 30mins from push back to airbourne. Stick in a second runway in for the smaller stuff and maybe we can hit the 15mins taxy time built into the slots

I hear where your coming from, I've shared your frustration at the holding point many times.

As far as I'm concerned BHX has plenty of capacity left in it's runway. What the problem is however is the supporting ground taxiway infrastructure that would allow ATC to realise that capacity. Currently their hands are tied by the lack of entry/exit points, and available taxiway space. Don't even get me going on the Cul-de-sac issues which do nothing other than hamper ground operations for all concerned. BIA have just constructed a new taxiway 'C' as you are aware. It can't however be used as an entry point to the runway as it blocks the 33 LOC. Departure waiting times are often forced upon ATC for many reasons, MDI's etc. Sequencing traffic though one runway entry,it is impossible to get maximum capacity under these sort of circumstances. Having 2 entries would reduce problems considerably. ie. if MDI's are on South departures, currently Northern departures are stuck in the line of awaiting departures. If they could have gone from 'C' they would be able to depart with minimum delay.

If you are to have 2 runways, one should NOT be planning multi-mode operation from them. Evidence clearly shows maximum capacity can ONLY be gained operating them in single mode configuration. BHX wouldn't be capable of this as their 'planned' second runway is too unreasonably short for larger traffic. Therefore, BIA's intent is to build something to fudge an issue, not to build something operationally capable of taking the airport into the future.

In summary, BHX only need a second runway because they fail to achieve the full potential from the one they have. What they should invest in, is achieving that potential - Gatwick does that superbly! Builing RET's that aren't, and can't be used as runway entry points in reverse is purely self created problems, from management with their heads in the sand as to true operational requirement. BHX's lack of capacity is partly a self created problem.........sadly!

30W

[Flap15Geardown]

Unfortunately you cant build ret's at BHX because there isn't enough room, that's why C has been built as a standard taxy way and not the ret that was initially planed. The C taxyway will help increase the movemnet rate as it will allow those going slow enough the chance to get off earlier and will greatly reduce the amount of time aircraft taxying or being towed across the airfield spend on the runway (straight across instead of F to E) and allowing departures from the Western Apron to cross and come round to E instead of backtracking. As Tesco's say, every little helps.

I think you are also wrong about using both runways simulatiously (when they do get round to building it). From memory the separation is enough to allow simultanious arrivals and departures, as is standard American practise. This wouldn't be possible with the origionaly planned longer second runway as that was too close.

[30W]

F15,

The number of deparures from the West Side are not by far not towards BHX's capacity issues. Yes crossing helps - but how many occasions are there departures sitting at 'F' awaiting backtrack? Occasionally, but rarely.

Yes I agree that the gap between R/W and 'E' does not allow an ICAO defined RET. However a much shallower angle was initially planned which would have served much better purpose fro exit speeds. I was at the BIA management briefing when they announced the change to 'C' - for the reasons I stated.

Simultanious operations are not just a U.S. thing - we have LHR just down the road which could, and occasionally under special conditions does operate such approaches. But why doesn't it do so as a matter of course (T4's could all land south side for example....). The answer is quite simple - it's a well proven fact that maximum capacity is gained from operating dual runways in single mode operation.

A wide spaced long runway WAS an option of the governments white paper options for BHX. The airport themselves rejected this and proposed the 2000m, wide spaced runway as their solution to solving local objections. Whilst this is applaudable in many ways, it doesn't necessarily make it the RIGHT decision for the best operation of the airport if it really wishes to maximise capacity. Having a second runway, that under normal operations many aircraft don't wish to use, is simply operational folly I.M.H.O.

I'm not against a second runway (I'd love to see all us operators expand at the airport!), I'm purely saying that if the necessary supporting infrastructure was provided for the current one, there would be far more capacity available than at present. Before having a second runway I believe we should maximise what we can do with the current one, and secondly, when/if we have a second runway, build one that allows MAXIMUM future operational potential/benefit.

30W

[cvt person]

Originally Posted by Trill_Flyer

Anybody working on these? What about their hangar it is still in use? If you look on Blackpool Spooters site there are a number of 748's there.

Are these impounded or just parked up?

The two 748's are now at the southern end of the old cross wind runway. Certainly look impounded with a tanker parked across their noses.

[Trill_Flyer]

WIDESPREAD REDUNDACIES AT EMERALD

cvt person

All the Shed Pilots have been issued with redundacy notices the weekend and now the HS 748 Pilots got theirs today.

[TheBoner]

CAHL

WTF CAHL have been doing really well of late. Picking up awards for the t-fly operation and recently winning the ready steady win challenge set by t-fly which makes them the best performing station in the network or put it another way the best handling agent for t-fly in the UK.

As for the airport well the south apron has now got 8 737 stands to play with and no one is not used for push back as their is a perfectly good taxiway to use. Their a wash stand and the apron can now park two 757 and 5 737 if needed. With the interim facility gaining approval this will now be better developed and improvements made. The departure lounge is adequate and their are two boarding gates which can hold nearly a whole flight each. It is possible to board 4 A/C in the space of an hour with no problems at all.

Coventry Airport is much more capable than people think. BHX watch out as your going to get FURB in the near future if you carry on being Txxts. New fuel farm is on its ways and the Bravo apron has been completed. Emerald have gone down the tubes but other business have gained considerably by this, i do feel sorry for all the fellow pilots and crew, sorry chaps . OK so will t-fly operate more flight and will any other carrier come into Coventry? Well of course they will. Will CAHL be there in 6 months time hmmmmmmm not so sure When i found out about changes in CAH i was shocked but cant say any more just yet

[Buster the Bear]

All Coventry needs now is some 'proper' competition for Tui! I guess Thomsonfly accounts for more than 90% of all passengers passing through the airport. Hapag (part of Tui) tried Coventry, it did not work for them, now they use Birmingham instead!

Too many light blues eggs in the Coventry basket?

Thomsonfly's recent growth has been from other airports, Luton being a case in point, Prague and Marrakesh are just two examples.

When are further Thomsonfly airframes planned to be based at Coventry, does anyone know?

[SeamusCVT]

Apart from the A320 Charter to Dublin a couple of months ago, I think Thomsonfly accounts for 100% of passengers through Coventry. I think the only time when any other airlines express an interest in Coventry Airport will be when/if the new 2 million passenger terminal is given approval.

The leases on the 4 CVT based 737-500s are to expire within the year. Coventry will then receive 4 737-300s indicating an increase in capacity.

[ua100]

cahl

theboner your comments are intriguing me

Will CAHL be there in 6 months time hmmmmmmm not so sure When i found out about changes in CAH i was shocked but cant say any more just yet

from what i know certain changes are required/needed and that cahl are doing well and are set to do better in the future.

can you say anything else?

[Buster the Bear]

737-500 = 130/ seats
737-300 = 148/9 seats
So equals about +13%?

I assume that by the time the -300's arrive, that they can operate unrestricted to all the current -500 destinations from Coventry's runway? I thought the -500 was selected ahead of the -300 due to runway issues? I guess that these will be resolved, otherwise will the -300 be operating at times under capacity?

By then, Coventry airport might just have some protective Controlled Airspace, thus allowing its commercial flights to avoid all the unknown FIR traffic?

[SeamusCVT]

Admittedly an increase of 13% on capacity does not sound much but you have to bear (excuse the pun) in mind that the current IPF can only accomodate 900,000 pax per annum, and that the actual facility is very small, therefore you don't want 4 757 plane loads at check in. However CVT has no problems accomodating the 737-300, before BOH opened as a Tfly base, CVT had the two based a/c there and were using them for revenue flights...furthermore there have been several a/c swaps over winter with CVT, BOH and DSA. The 737-800 on the other hand is a very different kettle of fish in relation to its performance at CVT.

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

CVT CAS

BTB
I really hope you have some inside knowledge on this.
Rumor is that the opposition to the ACP at CVT is very robust. Mostly from GA/Gliders/Microlights/Balloons(hot air type) and anyone else who has ever flown DTY-CT-LIC and if they get any kind of airspace in the next 2 years a Pig will be the 1st to ask for a crossing clearance.

[TheBoner]

lol CAH will be fine, they look in good shape. Will CAH being sold make any differance? Dont think so? CAH have got some good people and the service i get when i fly is good for the size airport.

can you say anything else? [/quote]

[BEagle]

Yes - the totally unwarranted airspace grab being attempted by ThomsonFly International aerodrome is indeed being robustly opposed. And quite rightly so too! There is no justification for it - it would be purely of benefit to ThomsonFly's shareholders...

Or to be more direct, you have 2 options:
1. Live with the status quo.
2. Sod off to a real airport.

Your choice....

[OCEAN WUN ZERO]

A balanced and well thought out post. BEagle.
1. Unless you have been off the planet you will of course know that the lease to operate EGBE is no longer owned by TOM.
2. ACP's no longer rely solely on ATM stats to be sucessfull in fact environmental issues for those on the ground seem to be No 1 priority.
3 65000 + pa movements mean it is a real airport or is it that the G/A element of that total is not 'real' aviation.