Chambery (CMF)

[jabird]

I note Snowjet is no longer a direct sell operation (LGW & STN to CMF), but I'm more intrigued by the lack of Easy & Ryan on this route.

The main scheduled player is Jet2, who aren't a London based carrier.

It is very rare for more routes to be available from the regions without a decent offering from London.

Is there a commercial reason for this, or is it a technical matter to do with the airport?

The runway is just over 2km, altitude less than 300m above sea level. Are there obstacles blocking the approach that preclude the operation of a (slightly) larger jet like the 738?

I seem to recall GNB being like this a few years back, but U2 have loads of routes there now.

[davidjohnson6]

Terrain at Chambery is quite different from Norfolk - it's in a steep valley, with big lumps of rock at one end of the valley as well. There's only one easy way in or out, namely over the lake.

That being said, if the Russians can manage to fly in from Moscow...

[jabird]

Terrain at Chambery is quite different from Norfolk - it's in a steep valley, with big lumps of rock at one end of the valley as well. .

Well it is aimed at skiers!

There's only one easy way in or out, namely over the lake

Do you know if there is a specific guidance regarding runway usage? Ie approach on 18, take off on 36?

I've not come across this at any commercial airport in Europe. Lukla in Nepal is famous for only offering one chance, but that is far more dramatic - and only for sub 20 seaters.

I have never seen a landing on 28 at SXM, although they are of course famous for much bigger birds!

It seems odd that LS would go in there, but U2 & FR wouldn't. If there is a safety reason, surely that would apply to all of them?

[EMB-145LR]

I have never seen a landing on 28 at SXM, although they are of course famous for much bigger birds!

I've done two or three landings over the years on 28 at SXM. It was always in a J32 though.

[bingofuel]

regarding runway usage? Ie approach on 18, take off on 36

The ILS at Chambery is on 18, and there is a visual break procedure to circle to land on 36, very scenic it is too!

The missed approach is a fairly complex manoeuvre requiring strict adherance to speeds, and angles of bank to get turned to exit the way you came in, and of course climb performance is rather important to get high enough to turn left out of the valley before colliding with the rock wall at the north end.

Special training required.

[Dysneyland]

It may primarily be due to a general lack of demand...there are already three major players around CMF, including LYS, GNB and GVA.

Also was looking at the size of the main apron the other day, and it's almost as bad as JSI ;)

I can't see specific crew training and qualifications being a problem here, look at easyJet operating in/out of INN.

Another striking example would be SIR in Switzerland (similar runway lenght and instrument approach), very popular ski destination but with only a few airlines (Titan?) venturing there...

[Hipennine]

Various skiing/boarding forums have been full of complaints about CMF services. Luggage regularly left behind, or routed via GVA because of loading weight restrictions by Jet2 (ski flights are invariably full luggage allowance plus skis for most pax). I assume that the other players don't want that sort of hassle. CMF use seems to have been driven primarily by seat charter by TUI group companies, although they don't use TUI metal !

[CentreFix25]

If I recall CMF has quite a big percentage of diversions which might be a little off putting for some, screwing up a days schedule.

The problem is not getting in, but getting out again when you can only use runway 36. I've heard of flights diverting because they didnt think they would get out again.

[Facelookbovvered]

The attraction of CMF is shorter transfer times to resort, important for places like Tignes or Val, the problem is that slot delays into CMF and consolidating coaches means that any saving in transfer time is often wasted by sitting around in the coach park. Factor in weather risks and payload restrictions and it becomes 50/50 as to whether it's worth it?

The busier the flight ( heavier ) the higher the approach speed means a higher, more restrictive minima due to lower MACG %

When it works well it's great, but GVA is less of an operational risk, ask the Flybe boys ( now men !)