MarkD

http://www.irishexaminer.com/pport/w...bBP-2fa91M.asp

REGIONAL airports Cork, Kerry, Knock, Shannon and Waterford have a chance of winning up to seven million Ryanair passengers in the coming months.

Ryanair chief operating officer Michael Cawley, in an interview, said he hopes regional airports will compete on costs as the airline allocates the 17 new Boeing 737-800s it will take delivery off between now and April.

<snip>

“We will be taking delivery of the new aircraft from October onwards. It takes us just 10 weeks to get a route up and running and all the regional airports have a chance of winning this business if the price is right.

<snip>

Opening up new Irish routes appears to be on the company’s agenda as Ryanair chief executive Michael O’Leary’s scripted comments, accompanying its first-quarter results, reveal.

“The legislation recently introduced by the Irish Government to break up Aer Rianta will enable (for the first time) all of the Government-owned Irish airports to compete on a level playing field.

<snip to end>

FlyLowCost

REGIONAL airports Cork, Kerry, Knock, Shannon and Waterford.....

Waterford?? How a B738 could fly to this airport??

Runway 03/21:
4701 x 98 feet
1433 x 30 meters

EI-WAT

Very easy FlyLowCost its called a runway + taxiway extension, and i doubt ne 1 down there would complain.


EI-WAT

MarkD

which just goes to show how far WAT is from civilisation... or Waterford itself for that matter

airbourne

Well a 732 could land, but not a full one could take off. Waterford is due for expansion expecially after the current year which saw pax numbers growing with flights by Aer Arann to Manchester and Lorient in France. Not much activity out there apart from that. You got the SAR and some GA.

Im not a big jets driver but is it true that an a320 can use WAT, but not a 737? I could be really wrong here.

runawayedge

What about the PCN.....runway, taxiway and apron......doubt that could take it! Then if it could MOLs argument at City of Derry goes out the window! Any real performance guys out there who might know? Have my own serious doubts, the word on the street is FR look for 2,000 mts plus RESA...

akerosid

It's always surprised me that FR's requirements for 738 landing lengths have been so high. Here in JER, we have a runway of around 5,500', give or take; 738s have operated here (Excel and Hapag Lloyd, to name two) and on considerably longer flights than FR would operate. Moreover, by getting into the more peripheral places (which may have shorter runways), but where it may be the only operator - certainly of the major carriers - it creates new markets for itself. Put another way, the longer their runway requirements, the more airports they put outside their radar scope and for a carrier which prides itself on getting into the most peripheral, back of beyond airports, that's possibly not a good thing.

If you're going to spend $40m on a new airplane, why not make sure you make it work as hard for you as it possibly can and that means using its short field performance; it's a 737 after all - a big 737, but still a 737 and short field performance is part of its mission.

MarkD

with apologies to Jackonicko and other clued up prooner journos, methinks the Examiner may have put words in Cawley's mouth when WAT was mentioned since he is not directly quoted about that airport.

If I was WAT, I would be cultivating Arann but also seeking out Flybe and other shortfield equipped operators to avoid the eggs in 1 basket scenario that has plagued WAT so often.

Exospheric

Knock, Knock...............

runawayedge

....yes but who's there...ask bmi (regional and baby)

Shaka Zulu

Probably one of the main reasons for lack of performance is the existence of a big de-rate on the engines, increasing life cycle/decreasing fuel burn etc etc.===money arguement. So if the basic cost of the flight goes up, pax figures need to be on the increase aswell, the equation to break even goes up.
Instead of 80 pax necessary to break even you need 100 for example.

It's all accountancy and money drives this sector

brabazon

Shaka

That's the key to it and I did mention it on thread on Ryanair and the City of Derry:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...hreadid=138607

Moderator - any chance of combining the two threads to avoid going round the same discussion again?

To move it on, does anyone have any idea of the % reduction in maintenance and fuel costs which Ryanair gain from having the de-rated version of the engine?

sparkymarky

I know the reason for having a single type fleet is efficiency and money saving, as is the reason for having the de-rated engines.

But how much would it cost to have say 80% of the fleet on de-rated engines and 20% on the more powerful engine version?

MarkD

If you follow the Southwest model, any variant should have at least 25 aircraft. Thus when the 732 fleet fell below 25, Southwest wanted them gone. This is why FR are getting shot of their 733s ex Buzz - they don't have critical mass.

Thus if FR was to keep a "high power" fleet, that's a good estimate of the numbers required.

brabazon

I don't think it makes any sense to have a mix of de-rated and full-rated engines - it's not as though they operate anywhere where the extra thrust would give them more payload and hence revenue, that's why they are threatening to withdraw from certain airports.

Also it would be a logistical nightmare to keep track of the aircraft and engines in terms of operational and maintenance requirements.

No, as said before, while Ryanair can get airports to lengthen their runways to meet the requirements for the de-rated version and gain the benefits of lower costs, they are not going to do anything different.

FRed up

guys , not sure ye are getting the derated thing here
with the exception of the buzz 737s(which i know nought about )
all the 800's are 26 K rated engines ,we can select fixed derates on the FMC of 26K 24K or 22k or if we need it we can go to 27K "bump" thrust , all by pressing a button so no different engines are required ,
for performance , we can then reduce the thrust for take off further by using the assumed temperature method which i trust u are all familiar with .
there is no temperature reduction allowed with the 27K thrust setting .
as for the short runway , landing on a 6000 foot runway( with 189 pax on board can be sporty ,tank god for them fecking huge brakes

hoss72

I hear that Ryanair still has a substantial shareholding in Waterford Airport (since the early days of Ryanair, remember the Bandierante operation from EIWF) and the Airport company has recently acquired land to extend the runway, possibly enough to extend by as much as 600mtrs. ! Let me see 1,433 + 600 = 2,033 mtrs. !! Hmmm.