St. Helena Service
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Marco Is., FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that's a date for air service to begin. It was the date the ship service was extended to. I suspect they're trying to find an airline willing to fly into St. Helena.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is that it's not the size but the type of aircraft with the stretched B737 being particularly unhealthy for the service.
With such a remote destination, and my reading that Ascension is only available in an emergency and not as an alternate, it's a case of finding a STOL (ish) aircraft, that has the range/endurance, for the operation and an operator of such a type interested in taking on the operation
With such a remote destination, and my reading that Ascension is only available in an emergency and not as an alternate, it's a case of finding a STOL (ish) aircraft, that has the range/endurance, for the operation and an operator of such a type interested in taking on the operation
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Marco Is., FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Ascension was approved as a destination and an alternate. The plan was to continue the weekly flight to Ascension once a month. I'm not up on that region's alternate rules but the fuel for remote island dispatch or Ascension as an alternate is probably almost the same and the 738 and AXX's have that ability from S. Africa. The B-757 is a better aircraft all-around but has a slightly higher operating cost and nobody in Africa operates them. There are several UK 757 operators. The BAE 146 is the only near STOL but is marginal in range and payload. Apparently there are two flights a week from Brize Norton RAF to Ascension and Falklands. They should try to get a UK 757 operator to operate a passenger service once a week through Ascension, St. Helena and Capetown and keep the chartered A-330 for freight to Ascension and Falklands once a week. I think the 757 could handle the short runway and turbulence at St. Helena better. A payload would be assured on the long haul between Ascension and the UK and service to and from St. Helena and Capetown and the UK would be better.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Siargao Island
Posts: 1,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But both the BAe146 and the B757 are becoming museum pieces, surely St. Helena should be looking to the future rather than the past.
I have to admit that I don't fully understand windshear but would something like the A318 be of any use? ... If it can operate JFK/LCY, albeit with a less than maximum payload, then it must have a reasonable range/endurance and if it is approved for 5.5 degree LCY approaches then would a 5.5 degree approach in to St. Helena assist with the problem of windshear at all?
I have to admit that I don't fully understand windshear but would something like the A318 be of any use? ... If it can operate JFK/LCY, albeit with a less than maximum payload, then it must have a reasonable range/endurance and if it is approved for 5.5 degree LCY approaches then would a 5.5 degree approach in to St. Helena assist with the problem of windshear at all?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Under a Rock
Age: 54
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B752 is hardly a museum piece. It's a very well built and extremely capable aircraft that is clearly the best option for the demanding nature of St Helena and the thin loads it is likely to have.
Until we get the A321LR, whose actual performance is to be proven, you can't really use anything else if you want to connect the island to Europe. From SA you have more choice, but clearly the B737 didn't cope too well,I doubt that a small Airbus would be any better.
Until we get the A321LR, whose actual performance is to be proven, you can't really use anything else if you want to connect the island to Europe. From SA you have more choice, but clearly the B737 didn't cope too well,I doubt that a small Airbus would be any better.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit that I don't fully understand windshear but would something like the A318 be of any use? ... If it can operate JFK/LCY, albeit with a less than maximum payload, then it must have a reasonable range/endurance and if it is approved for 5.5 degree LCY approaches then would a 5.5 degree approach in to St. Helena assist with the problem of windshear at all?
Apparently there are two flights a week from Brize Norton RAF to Ascension and Falklands.
I can't see that operation being amended for the benefit of St Helena, although I was struck by the number of "Saints" working as contractors at the Falklands garrison when I visited several years ago.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can those with experience of both Boeing & AB types give their opinions on which is preferable in gusty challenging wind conditions. I know my preference, but with no AB line experience. I have taken B757 into some very small airfields with dodgy winds, but perhaps nothing like as described in St. Helena; although I'm sure Funchal operators have opinions. From a diversion point of view B757 does have a supplementary fuel tank on Hold 3 option. Is that an answer to the diversion issue?
Can those with experience of both Boeing & AB types give their opinions on which is preferable in gusty challenging wind conditions. I know my preference, but with no AB line experience. I have taken B757 into some very small airfields with dodgy winds, but perhaps nothing like as described in St. Helena; although I'm sure Funchal operators have opinions. From a diversion point of view B757 does have a supplementary fuel tank on Hold 3 option. Is that an answer to the diversion issue?
Have seen plenty of reference to LCY on this thread. Having prepared a flight feasibility study for a route to LCY using F70 with a 120 min stage length, I can see many parallels on why a commercial service to SHA will NOT work given the current setup:
At LCY we found (much to our initial surprise) that the primary limiting factor was not LDA, but TORA. Given the availability of suitable alternates, landing weights would have been low even with a full commercial load, permitting safe ops even on wet runway conditions. Using Met Office data, we estimated that on a year-round basis less than 2% of the flights would have required a weather diversion to STN, that is one flight every two months on a daily service, well within acceptable limits. However given the required trip fuel, to meet one engine out performance, wet-runway takeoff was only possible with a 50% reduction in commercial load - and data indicated wet runway conditions likely for 180 out of the 365 days of the year. This effectively killed the project, as technically it would have been possible, but commercially not viable.
The same applies to SHA. With the diversion alternates all 2-3 hours away, there will be little difference in landing and take-off weights, the alternate fuel being the trip fuel for the return leg. Wet runway conditions will have a severe impact on permissible payload both in and out, the wind condition only has the effect of reducing LDA. With reduced payloads seat cost will go up dramatically, well beyond the levels acceptable for unsubsidized tourist traffic. Of course SHG may chose to give subsidies to residents and public service traffic, but that will mean low frequencies/small aircraft, hardly the promised tourism boom that was the underlying business case for the whole airport.
At LCY we found (much to our initial surprise) that the primary limiting factor was not LDA, but TORA. Given the availability of suitable alternates, landing weights would have been low even with a full commercial load, permitting safe ops even on wet runway conditions. Using Met Office data, we estimated that on a year-round basis less than 2% of the flights would have required a weather diversion to STN, that is one flight every two months on a daily service, well within acceptable limits. However given the required trip fuel, to meet one engine out performance, wet-runway takeoff was only possible with a 50% reduction in commercial load - and data indicated wet runway conditions likely for 180 out of the 365 days of the year. This effectively killed the project, as technically it would have been possible, but commercially not viable.
The same applies to SHA. With the diversion alternates all 2-3 hours away, there will be little difference in landing and take-off weights, the alternate fuel being the trip fuel for the return leg. Wet runway conditions will have a severe impact on permissible payload both in and out, the wind condition only has the effect of reducing LDA. With reduced payloads seat cost will go up dramatically, well beyond the levels acceptable for unsubsidized tourist traffic. Of course SHG may chose to give subsidies to residents and public service traffic, but that will mean low frequencies/small aircraft, hardly the promised tourism boom that was the underlying business case for the whole airport.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Marco Is., FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off course TORA is limiting at SHA, less so with the 752. The 1000' displaced threshold is a nuisance also for wet runway dispatch. Many of the passengers on all those routes are Saints going to and from workplaces so I suspect their tickets are already paid for. SHG called for 120 seats from SA which is about half a one class B 752. That leaves a lot of flexibility for freight in and out.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting but this isn't the same as a regular flight into a busy airport like LCY - much of the year they don't get much rain at all
If the runway is wet you don't take-off until it is dry - admittedly there'd be a delay issue but it might not be very long - the aircraft will blocked out for some considerable time anyway
As someone has already posted you need to talk to TAP or anyone else who flies into Funchal and similar on a regular basis
If the runway is wet you don't take-off until it is dry - admittedly there'd be a delay issue but it might not be very long - the aircraft will blocked out for some considerable time anyway
As someone has already posted you need to talk to TAP or anyone else who flies into Funchal and similar on a regular basis
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Marco Is., FL
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think St. Helena has many wet runway days per the official description but prudent dispatchers usually use wet runway lengths unless that becomes a problem and the forecasts are favorable. That brings up another point. These current 737-X and small A 3XX's are "lead sleds" on the runway at higher weights. The 737 started out 50 years ago as a 110K lb aircraft and is now up to over 187K lbs. The wing has been increased but only by about 20% in area. Most of the weight increase has been accommodated by much bigger engines and brakes and much higher runway speeds. The B-757-200 is not a led sled and has runway speeds typically more than 10 knots less than the smaller aircraft. The runway speeds of these small aircraft are greater than the original turbojets. It is also generally true that larger aircraft with larger spans are less affected by turbulence. I think it all started going wrong when they put brakes on the aeroplanes and got rid of the tail skid and grass runways.
a route to LCY using F70
The limiting factor in LCY departures is a bridge over the Thames east of the airport when on easterlies and its impact on engine-out performance. Regular users of the airport may feel they have not seen such a bridge. That is true, it has never been built - but it is planned, theoretically could be built one day, and thus has this theoretical impact on performance limits.
Back at St Helena, I'm starting to get the feeling that Comair have just got cold feet about the financials of the operation.
@WHBM
I was speaking specificly of a sector requiring 2 hours of trip fuel. The F70 could operate comfortably out of LCY without any restrictions on sectors under 90 minutes (it was Air Littoral operating on behalf AF, sat as observer on several of their approaches and departures). Same issues come to play at SHA with the minimum 2h+ alternate fuel.
In the end you're correct, it is a financial decision. The high probability of payload restriction / diversion / weather delays all add to the total cost of the operation, and to recover that would place the already high fares in the unaffordable category for anyone not on an expense account. I'm sure the folks at Comair have done the maths and have come to the conclusion that there is no way to make money on a 738 with the known constraints. The small inelastic market can easily be served with a BJ. The only slight and insignificant little detail is that the airport project numbers were based on the assumption that a commercial service is feasible.
For those bringing up FNC as a comparison, apples & oranges. FNC has a 2700m runway (that is 1000m more than SHA) and the alternate, TFN is under an hour. It is not the wind/turbulence per se that caused the isse with SHA but the combination of short runway, high landing weights AND wind - you cannot have all three at the same time. With wind, runway length and distance of alternate given, it is only the payload that may be varied - with predictable commercial results.
I was speaking specificly of a sector requiring 2 hours of trip fuel. The F70 could operate comfortably out of LCY without any restrictions on sectors under 90 minutes (it was Air Littoral operating on behalf AF, sat as observer on several of their approaches and departures). Same issues come to play at SHA with the minimum 2h+ alternate fuel.
In the end you're correct, it is a financial decision. The high probability of payload restriction / diversion / weather delays all add to the total cost of the operation, and to recover that would place the already high fares in the unaffordable category for anyone not on an expense account. I'm sure the folks at Comair have done the maths and have come to the conclusion that there is no way to make money on a 738 with the known constraints. The small inelastic market can easily be served with a BJ. The only slight and insignificant little detail is that the airport project numbers were based on the assumption that a commercial service is feasible.
For those bringing up FNC as a comparison, apples & oranges. FNC has a 2700m runway (that is 1000m more than SHA) and the alternate, TFN is under an hour. It is not the wind/turbulence per se that caused the isse with SHA but the combination of short runway, high landing weights AND wind - you cannot have all three at the same time. With wind, runway length and distance of alternate given, it is only the payload that may be varied - with predictable commercial results.
Last edited by andrasz; 27th Sep 2016 at 08:36.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it's built now - so the cash is long gone - the important thing is to establish some sort of regular service
It doesn't HAVE to be cheap - people spend thousands on their holidays - certainly not the bucket and spade brigade but as people can make money running trips to Antarctica there should be a small but "discerning" (= rich) group who could support such a flight
It doesn't HAVE to be cheap - people spend thousands on their holidays - certainly not the bucket and spade brigade but as people can make money running trips to Antarctica there should be a small but "discerning" (= rich) group who could support such a flight
@HH
Indeed, however even there the air operations (Kenn Borek Air) are not done on a commercial basis, most of their flights are on contract to support the research bases, the commercial passengers are just an add-on. I believe - and if any Saints read this, please comment - the real issue is that the whole case behind the airport was to give a boost to the island economy by bringing in 100-150 tourists per week who would stay and spend their money there. Such volumes can only be sustained if the total flight cost stays under 1500-2000 pounds (from origin, not from SA). The return seat cost on a small BJ would be closer to 5000-7000 pounds, which would cut the tourist flow to a trickle, and even if much more were to be spent on the plane ticket, the per head spend on the island itself would not be much different.
...people can make money running trips to Antarctica...
Indeed, however even there the air operations (Kenn Borek Air) are not done on a commercial basis, most of their flights are on contract to support the research bases, the commercial passengers are just an add-on. I believe - and if any Saints read this, please comment - the real issue is that the whole case behind the airport was to give a boost to the island economy by bringing in 100-150 tourists per week who would stay and spend their money there. Such volumes can only be sustained if the total flight cost stays under 1500-2000 pounds (from origin, not from SA). The return seat cost on a small BJ would be closer to 5000-7000 pounds, which would cut the tourist flow to a trickle, and even if much more were to be spent on the plane ticket, the per head spend on the island itself would not be much different.