easyJet to Tenerife

[SWADLER747]

Hi All !

I'm sure a lot of people have heard rumours of EasyJet to operate to Tenerife South. How substantial are these rumours?

Any easyJet employees out there ?

Cheers

[Crew_MYT]

Mytravellite already go to TFS, think we are the only low cost who do, so wouldn't be surprised if EZY are trying to start up this route too

[GW76]

Seems a bit out of the normal low cost pattern with such a long sector time. Would be 9 hours roundtrip.:confused:

[Golf Charlie Charlie]

The flights to Athens must be about the same round-trip and this doesn't seem to be a problem for them.

[U/S President]

Go dropped its STN-TFS service after 6 months, MyTravelLite dropped its LGW-TFS service after 3 days, its MAN-TFS service after 4 months and its BHX-TFS service after 6 months.

Maybe easyJet can make TFS work (it is only 22% further from London than ATH is), but history isn’t on their side as proven low-cost destinations go.

[Lite]

Tenerife was served daily by Go, I'm not sure why they dropped the service, but Go didn't think it fitted well with their service model - and so the route was dropped after about five months.

I believe that Athens isnt a very successful route for EZY. I read somewhere that because the flight is about 4 hours and the airline makes more money from using its aircraft & crew on multiple sectors its a bit of a money drain with quite a lot of low yielding passengers.

So, who knows?
Are the Athens rumours true?
Would the bucket & spade brigade put up with next to no service on a 4 and a half hour flight?

[triplespool]

I would have thought Tenerife was to far for a 300 to do all the time, NG no problem.

[Buster the Bear]

News to Buster, I thought long sectors are the IT/Charter market apart from EZY to ATH.

[Tarek Nor]

Flyglobespan are operating to TFS from GLA.

See www.flyglobespan.com for details :ok:

[Faulty]

bmi operate a schedule service to Tenerife from Heathrow to both North and South.

http://www.flybmi.com/bmi/en-gb/index.aspx

[bacardi walla]

Nothing wrong with a -300 heading down to TFS, Monarch, Orion, Dan Air amongst others used to do it all the time. Might struggle if the engines are the old B1's though but don't suppose EZY have any of those.

[triplespool]

bacardi, there is no way a easy -300 with 20K engines will get out of them islands with a full load in the summer, and Tarek Nor globespans idea of another 1 hour on top is pushing it a bit far.

[bacardi walla]

triplespool, all I was saying is that other airlines used to do LTN-TFS-LTN non stop and that was with slightly higher rated engines as I remember. Monarch used to do GLA-TFS-GLA so what's the problem with FlyGlobespan doing it ?

[triplespool]

About 2 tonnes of fuel to start with.

[SWADLER747]

triplespool

About 2 tonnes of fuel to start with.

A 737-300 flying to to UK from TFS, will use a lot more that 2 tonnes of fuel. EZY may/could use the -700, or A319's. Also may I raise the point that there are many operators of B733's at TFS, all year round that fly to the UK and Europe.

Take Hola for example - Its never been a problem.....TFS has a very long runway. If a 747 can make it off in the heat, I'm sure a 733 can.

[bacardi walla]

....and a B747 has a bit more power than that little ol 737......

[MerchantVenturer]

In the 1980s I flew as a passenger on at least half a dozen return trips from BRS to the Canaries (usually TFS) on Britannia B 737-200s. Not once did we have to land en route to take on fuel in either direction.

I recall the 300s coming into service and I seem to remember part of the blurb at the time was that they were bigger and more efficient than the 200s.

If 200s seemed to manage what would be the problem with 300s if they were meant to be an improvement on the 200s?

[Musket90]

The STN-TFS wasn't profitable for Go. Also I think it was a night flight so the aircraft was available at STN during the day for more lucrative shorter haul routes.

[LGS6753]

Monarch Scheduled already operate Luton-TFS, and have done for some years.
Although EZY have gone head-to-head with MON on Luton-PMI (and won), ALC (draw) FAO (draw) and AGP (ahead), I too don't think they will want to tie up an aircraft for 9-10 hours on a competitive route like that, which is busy mainly on certain change-over days (especially Friday).
This seems like the natural habitat of the greater spotted M.

[Jet A1]

I hear Bmi have pulled the LHR-TFS route -- Might look at it again next winter !

Low cost for 4.5hrs in a Sardine can 737 does not sound funny !!

[UFGBOY]

I think in the dim and distant past Orion/BY used to do
MAN-TFS n the old scud.. I rememeber that shower of s££t Leisure doing it as well - used MAN full length runway but we did it....

[Buster the Bear]

LGS6753, my thoughts entirely. You need a massive yield to make a 4 hour secotor work LOW COST factoring in daily rotations.

[Tarek Nor]

triplespool

The Globespan aircraft have 22k C1 engines. :cool:


bacardi walla

EZY do (or at least did) have some B1's including the
2 ex Go machines that now were supposed to get.

[Localiser Green]

EZY 737-700s are 60,300kg MTOW aren't they? Compared to say Astraeus 70,000kg....

A fully loaded 73G will have a ZFW of about 52,000kg - so that only leaves just over 8,000kg fuel at t/o. I don't think that's enough for LGW-TFS in a 73G?

Am I way out on the figures here or is it really as tight as it looks?

[Stud3]

EZY 737-700s are 60,300kg MTOW aren't they?

They are in most places but in Newcastle are restricted to about 56T due performance, and also for MLW. The Malaga sometimes has to go without pax if its got more than 140 people with 140+bags booked, block fuel usually around 9T with a burn of about 6/7 T, so i think a bit more than 8 T will be needed for the canaries.

321's burn around 12/13T to canaries from NCL.

[Localiser Green]

G-EZJT (for example) has an MTOW of 60,328kg (according to the G-INFO database at caa.co.uk).

So if trip fuel to the Canaries from LON on a 73G is, let's say, 9,000kg then the block fuel has to be at least 11,000kg, maybe 12,000kg, which makes the MZFW for the trip about 49,000kg.

That sounds to me like they will have to do without at least 20 passengers or so compared with a full load.... any 73G drivers care to confirm my figures aren't way out here? :confused:

[DOOBIE]

Looking a bit deeper at G-INFO, some of the 737-73Vs such as GEZJM have a MTOW of 62595, and others such as GEZKD have a MTOW of 64863. Using the figures given by Loc Green, both of these heavier weight aeroplanes should provide for his unhappy 20 passengers.

[Localiser Green]

Indeed, on closer inspection of the database the fleet of 30 73Gs in service have different MTOWs:

11 are 60,328kg MTOW
11 are 62,595kg MTOW
8 are 64,863kg MTOW

I wonder why EZY decided to have differing MTOWs on their production aircraft? Perhaps it was with potential routes to the Canaries in mind after all?

Or Scotland to AGP / FAO, those routes might stretch the 60.3t birds a bit (if they chose to introduce them)...

Whilst we are on the topic does anyone know what the advantages of having an aircraft delivered with a lower MTOW are? If Astraeus can have 73Gs with a 70t MTOW then presumably so can EZY...

Is it to do with enroute handling and airport landing / parking fees?

[Mr @ Spotty M]

I may be well off the mark here, so don’t shoot me down in flames.
EasyJets B737NG may all be the 70t MTOW version.
Many airlines register their aircraft at lower MTOW, economic reasons.
If an airline has no plans to use the aircraft at high weights it will save them money.
I believe that you pay for airport Landing, Take-off fees at what your aircraft is registered at, in its C of A and not by its actual weight.
I have know at least one well know airline to register some aircraft like this.

[Fly-by-night]

You're quite right Mr @ Spotty M

EastJet could if they wished, with little notice, recertify their -700s to a structural MTOW close to 70 tonnes. I can't see it happening though and with 20K engines they'd still be limited on the day on most occasions to a figure well below that value. The balance of yield/flight time would I imagine preclude them from considering this route.

FBN

[CrashDive]

I worked for Go, and am also presently happily employed at Astraeus, wherein I have regularly operated from London to TFS, using just about every variant of B737-300/700 and combination of engine-power & nominated take-off weights.

In the short period which Go operated STN-TFS-STN, I flew that route using B737-300’s, that typically had reduced nominated MTOW's and with engines that had been derated to 20K thrust and yes, when full (148 pax), it could be a challenge to get back to STN - though usually involving no more than a sharp pencil with the performance calculation and optimum flap[1] / improved climb.

That said, the low cost model - as some have already pointed out above - works best on flights that are short, e.g. averaging about 1:43 ( from my memory of Go’s routes ).
It's all to do with a balancing act of aircraft lease costs, sector fuel burn, aircraft maintenance accruals, crew utilisation, airport & route costs, pax demand, versus what you can realistically expect to charge the passengers for the seat on that sector – and on longer sectors the LoCo model tends to fall apart.


Localiser Green – you are indeed a bit out on the figures, i.e. with a full passenger load ( 148 pax @ charter weights ), averaged against a/c type and assuming no runway / climb performance restrictions, an Astraeus:

737-300 can lift 15.5T of fuel ( tank capacity is 16.1T )
737-700 can lift 18.8T of fuel.( tank capacity is 20.9T )

Incidentally, when operating our weekly B737-700 schedule between LGW-Malabo ( Equatorial Guinea ) the flight time is in the region of 7+ hours – albeit that the aircraft is not full of passengers but is, typically, full to the brim with fuel.

bacardi walla – the B747 might well indeed have more total power than a B737 but the latter has a considerably higher power-to-weight ratio – indeed this is true of almost any modern twin-jet aircraft.
The reasoning is that, if you have an engine failure on a 747-400 you’ve lost 25% of your available power, but wherein the regulations require that your a/c still achieves a certain level of performance even with an engine failed ( e.g. the screen height, etc ).
With an engine failure in a twin-jet, you've lost 50% of your available power ( :eek: ) and yet your aircraft must still comply with the performance regulations ( i.e. those applicable to aircraft that have more than two engines ); or putting it another way, with the loss of an engine on a twin-jet you can expect your aircraft to achieve all of the performance limits set down for an aircraft with more than two engines.

Of course / on the flipside, when all the engines on a twin-jet are working, one then has bags and bags of excess thrust, which equates to bags and bags of performance in-hand, and which is part of what makes twin-jets such a pleasure to fly, e.g. outrageous climb rates are possible even at high weights.

[Zulu]

Excellent post, CrashDive.

Still, 7 hours on a B737...:ouch: !

[WHBM]

Still, 7 hours on a B737...
Air Pacific do Vancouver to Fiji, 15 hours 45 mins, no less, in a 737-800 (intermediate stops at Honolulu and Apia).

Now that's some task for a 737 (entirely across ocean too).