Originally Posted by
Harry Wayfarers
I'd suggest that smaller aircraft offering more frequent services to be preferable to larger aircraft offering less fequent services particularly taking in to consideration the terrain and weather conditions associated with St. Helena.
So what if the runway may be capable of accommodating B737-800's & A320's, why take unecessary risks if B737-600/700's, A318/319's, Embraers & Bombardiers and whatever can do it just as comfortably and with less risk involved.
But there is a modern day mentality to squeeze as many bums in to one flight as is possible, a local airline to me (Air Philippines) have realised the error of their ways, their Q400's don't have the runway performance to operate to/from a number of airports here so they've needed to go back in time and recommence Q300 operations.
It's much more expensive to use two smaller aircraft. There are two main problems; the first carrier to be awarded the route apparently has an automatic go-around policy after a wind shear alert. Many carriers do not in the absence of thunderstorms and frontal activity.
The second problem is when landing downwind to avoid the turbulence, 1000 ft. of runway at the rollout end is subtracted from the runway because of RESAs. The 6396 ft. pavement becomes 5036 ft. Now this is a scary table top airport with 1000 ft. elevation. Anybody that's relaxed flying in here is crazy. Where does designing a runway to make it "damn fool proof" end.