When do TUI'S 735's Arrive At Coventry?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Small4: At the risk of being flamed... I dont think anyone, including the opposition groups, is saying the 735's cant be operated out of coventry, they clearly are operated already, but..
I believe the argument is that coventry's shorter runway 05 , at 1615 m TORA, is very short for a 737-500 with fuel and reserve for the longer hops to malaga, rome etc, with a "full payload of passengers and baggage". On hotter days the problem clearly gets worse. My understanding is that they will be limited, in some circumstances to 75% payload or even less.
Would anyone deny that runway 05 could do with a extra couple of hunded metres of tarmac , to be comfortable?
With regard to Jersey comments, I believe Im also correct in saying that
1) Jersey's shorter runway direction is (slightly) longer at 1645 m TORA than coventry's
2) Clearly the european sectors are a couple of hundred mile shorter from Jersey - ie less fuel.
Both of which mean Jersy is less 'near the limits' than coventry.
I believe the argument is that coventry's shorter runway 05 , at 1615 m TORA, is very short for a 737-500 with fuel and reserve for the longer hops to malaga, rome etc, with a "full payload of passengers and baggage". On hotter days the problem clearly gets worse. My understanding is that they will be limited, in some circumstances to 75% payload or even less.
Would anyone deny that runway 05 could do with a extra couple of hunded metres of tarmac , to be comfortable?
With regard to Jersey comments, I believe Im also correct in saying that
1) Jersey's shorter runway direction is (slightly) longer at 1645 m TORA than coventry's
2) Clearly the european sectors are a couple of hundred mile shorter from Jersey - ie less fuel.
Both of which mean Jersy is less 'near the limits' than coventry.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Walmington on Sea
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be quite some confusion about runway length at CVT, especially from the anti's.
To put it simply, they are no grey areas in runway length, either it is long enough, or it isn't, for a given t/o weight, fullstop! The MTOW can and most likely, will, vary from day to day, flight to flight.
In public transport op's, there are no 'uncomfortable' runway lengths. Apart from the fact it is worked out, usually both manually and on computor, there are large safety margins factorised into the calculations. If its marginal, its safe as it is within factorised safety limits (based usually on an average aircrafts performance). If it's beyond marginal, you dump weight because it is outside limits! Simple.
I admit to not having a deep knowledge of the 737 series perf calc's, but I would have thought that it would only become an issue with full fax, lots of go juice and a damn hot day. You can bet that TUI have run these calculations over and over to assess any impact on business.
ExO
To put it simply, they are no grey areas in runway length, either it is long enough, or it isn't, for a given t/o weight, fullstop! The MTOW can and most likely, will, vary from day to day, flight to flight.
In public transport op's, there are no 'uncomfortable' runway lengths. Apart from the fact it is worked out, usually both manually and on computor, there are large safety margins factorised into the calculations. If its marginal, its safe as it is within factorised safety limits (based usually on an average aircrafts performance). If it's beyond marginal, you dump weight because it is outside limits! Simple.
I admit to not having a deep knowledge of the 737 series perf calc's, but I would have thought that it would only become an issue with full fax, lots of go juice and a damn hot day. You can bet that TUI have run these calculations over and over to assess any impact on business.
ExO
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confused about the runway length at coventry? 05 1615m Tora and 23 1825m Tora. The official coventry airport website neglects to tell you about the short runway 05 in its 'data' section. Maybe they are confused?
So if the winds in the wrong direction, or its a bit hot, some customers will be politely asked to stay behind? or their baggage accidentally left behind?
Anyway, I think we more or less agree. When using 05 for takeoff, payload will be limited in some circumstances
To put it simply, they are no grey areas in runway length, either it is long enough, or it isn't, for a given t/o weight, fullstop! The MTOW can and most likely, will, vary from day to day, flight to flight.
If it's beyond marginal, you dump weight because it is outside limits! Simple
Anyway, I think we more or less agree. When using 05 for takeoff, payload will be limited in some circumstances
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: London Whipsnade Wildlife Park
Posts: 5,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why choose to fly from and then be forced to buy an airport with non 24-7-365 operable availability for the aircraft type they selected to operate and to the destinations on offer?
Anyway, when Buster sets his CeapyBairJet up, I can fully anticipate being offered the same incentives and discounts from TUI Coventry as ThomsonFly get under a new European court ruling. What a legal minefield that would be now that airports have to offer all subsidies to ALL potential customers!
Anyway, when Buster sets his CeapyBairJet up, I can fully anticipate being offered the same incentives and discounts from TUI Coventry as ThomsonFly get under a new European court ruling. What a legal minefield that would be now that airports have to offer all subsidies to ALL potential customers!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twostroke, if you read Ex Oggie's post, he says dump weight, not pax, not baggage. Nobody or their luggage will be left behind, all that may be required is a tech stop for fuel.
For the record, 05 CVT does have a TORA of 1615m, but also a TODA of 1865m and ASDA of 1795m, so probably not quite as limiting as the NIMBYs hope.
For the record, 05 CVT does have a TORA of 1615m, but also a TODA of 1865m and ASDA of 1795m, so probably not quite as limiting as the NIMBYs hope.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Warwickshire, UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When using 23 for take off the 737 was rotating after a 25 second roll which is the runway crossover just after Echo. When it lands it stops before Echo (Echo is around 1/2 of the runway.. there abouts). The 757 uses 2/3 of the runway and stops at A1 before it has to backtrack to Echo via 05. They won't need to backtrack soon once the taxiway from the end of 23 (top of 05) is complete (work already started). So hopefully they'll get them off the runway quicker since it can get rather busy occasionally. They don't use up alot of the runway even on the hotter days.
They are rather quiet actually also, IMO the Emerald 360's are SO much louder than the 737/757 it's unbelievable! After takeoff from 23 it's an immediate left hand turn at 500ft to avoid passing over Baginton. And a immediate right hand when 05. 23 is always favoured though to prevent backtrack.
Even with a wet runway, they just kick up the spray and they rotate just after E1 (53%) of runway used. Having said that, when 05 is in use they go right to the end. Stop for a while, bring the engines up. Then put full power on, wait for 5 seconds or so, then release the brakes to gain that essential speed (understable). IMHO i'd rather a 737/757 than the Atlantique DC3's flying over.
And hey, it isn't as though the people of Baginton didn't notice the airport when they bought there house. Afterall, it's been there since 1935 or so. And jets going in and out for a long time.
I could see some BAe146's going in and out. They use hardly any of the runway. A flightline one that was going to Bordeaux was up before E1, it was probably empty though, or had few pax.
If the runway wasn't long enough, I don't think TUI would be using it. Since they know what they're doing afterall!
The only problem now is the council and their injunction. However, when it's appealed at the high court (if they're actually stopped) it will most likely be passed since it isn't affecting anyone. Just the locals have more to moan about. Afterall, they can't stop Thomson from flying out. Only building a terminal.
Adam!
They are rather quiet actually also, IMO the Emerald 360's are SO much louder than the 737/757 it's unbelievable! After takeoff from 23 it's an immediate left hand turn at 500ft to avoid passing over Baginton. And a immediate right hand when 05. 23 is always favoured though to prevent backtrack.
Even with a wet runway, they just kick up the spray and they rotate just after E1 (53%) of runway used. Having said that, when 05 is in use they go right to the end. Stop for a while, bring the engines up. Then put full power on, wait for 5 seconds or so, then release the brakes to gain that essential speed (understable). IMHO i'd rather a 737/757 than the Atlantique DC3's flying over.
And hey, it isn't as though the people of Baginton didn't notice the airport when they bought there house. Afterall, it's been there since 1935 or so. And jets going in and out for a long time.
I could see some BAe146's going in and out. They use hardly any of the runway. A flightline one that was going to Bordeaux was up before E1, it was probably empty though, or had few pax.
If the runway wasn't long enough, I don't think TUI would be using it. Since they know what they're doing afterall!
The only problem now is the council and their injunction. However, when it's appealed at the high court (if they're actually stopped) it will most likely be passed since it isn't affecting anyone. Just the locals have more to moan about. Afterall, they can't stop Thomson from flying out. Only building a terminal.
Adam!
Thread Starter
Yes BAW 194, the flightline 146 was used by TUI due to the delay in avalability of their next 735 (G-OC). So im sure there were a number of passengers on board when you saw this take off and that the runway distance used was not to anyones concern!
Many Thansk Dan
Many Thansk Dan
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seats go on sale on Thursday for Thomson IT's. Flights are available from Coventry to Mahon, Corfu and Faro. All flights 'W' rotations departing mid afternoon (when it's hot) by B757-200. Flights operate May-Oct 2005.
Jon
Jon
Last edited by jon01; 27th Apr 2004 at 09:52.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Midlands
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that Thomson are flying Aberdeen to Tenerife this summer, any idea what they are using out of there? The TORA is 1829M and a TODA of 2030M.
Are they planning to do that direct? If they can I reckon Coventry-Corfu shouldn't be a problem!
Andy
Are they planning to do that direct? If they can I reckon Coventry-Corfu shouldn't be a problem!
Andy
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't think they have any intention of basing a B752 at Cov for a whole season.
The B752 flights are doing 'W' rotations next year, this means they are probably Birmingham or N-EMA based aircraft and crews that route, for example, B'ham-Faro-Cov-Faro-B'ham.
Jon
The B752 flights are doing 'W' rotations next year, this means they are probably Birmingham or N-EMA based aircraft and crews that route, for example, B'ham-Faro-Cov-Faro-B'ham.
Jon
Last edited by jon01; 30th Apr 2004 at 11:41.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Coventry
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plonker Plaskitts lies & errors
Just checking through Hansard, and there are some astonishing quotes from James Plaskitt re: Coventry Airport:
"When the new service was proposed, Coventry airport submitted a planning application to build a new terminal."
The application has been in place since March 2003. Coventry have always expressed an intention to run a small no-frills operation. Nothing changed when TOM made their announcement - it only confirmed the existing intention.
"Last month, in only a few hours, Thomsonfly purchased the airport, so the airport operator and the airline are now the same entity".
It was TUI group who purchased the airport, and does he really think the transaction took "only a few hours". Besides, what is technically wrong with airport & airline being part of the same group? Isn't this what has been argued for the railways?
"Taken together, the whole operation would be close to the scale of that at East Midlands airport at present, which would be a complete transformation in the historical nature of such a small rural airport" .."the airport is home to several small flight training and freight operations"
An airport which has been in existence longer than Birmingham. Which is surrounded by heavily trafficed roads, an industrial estate and a car factory. Which is the headquarters of Parcelforce UK. Yup, that really sounds small and rural to me.
On congratulating the government on the white paper "..to make the best use of existing facilities, ... and to reject new airports on greenfield sites…
Surely that is EXACTLY what is happening at Coventry?
On Rugby Airport: I am inclined to answer "Only one miracle at a time"
As if Rugby airport was ever a serious threat, and as if Plaskitt made the slightest difference in the "decision" not to take it any further.
"Indeed, the first that I or any of my constituents knew about it was seeing advertisements on our regional television"
This shows an utter ignorance of developments at his local airport. Coventry's plans for passenger flights were well documented & openly expressed long before the announcement. Just exactly what sort of consultation was expected - they could not exactly discuss details of confidential commercial arrangements with the public.
"in a very short space of time, this airport will begin handling 2 million passengers a year"
The current Thomsonfly timetable is for about 1/8th of this number.
"I understand that it is also talking to about 20 other regional airports in the UK, none of which is a former second world war aerodrome and all of which are established"
Is Doncaster established?
"The only possible reason for starting at Coventry is because it is cheap: it has nothing to do with the Government's air transport strategy and everything to do with quick profit for one company"
Benbecula is cheap too. How about proximity to large cities nearby, easy road access etc....
The market should dictate where people want to fly, not the Government.
"there is a nearer and far more imminent threat than we ever considered possible when we objected to an international airport at Rugby.
Where have you been over the Midlands aviation debate Mr Plaskitt? Coventry's intentions have been well known throughout this. Even the White Paper you keep referring to mentions the 2m passengers per year terminal. Why have you done nothing about the freight flights? These are far noisier, and emit a lot more pollution. These planes are so old that they have escaped any kind of regulation. They could economically be replaced by much quieter equipment.
If you are that concerned about the growth in aviation, why have you done nothing about the tax situation on flights? It is your government which REDUCED air passenger duty.
"When the new service was proposed, Coventry airport submitted a planning application to build a new terminal."
The application has been in place since March 2003. Coventry have always expressed an intention to run a small no-frills operation. Nothing changed when TOM made their announcement - it only confirmed the existing intention.
"Last month, in only a few hours, Thomsonfly purchased the airport, so the airport operator and the airline are now the same entity".
It was TUI group who purchased the airport, and does he really think the transaction took "only a few hours". Besides, what is technically wrong with airport & airline being part of the same group? Isn't this what has been argued for the railways?
"Taken together, the whole operation would be close to the scale of that at East Midlands airport at present, which would be a complete transformation in the historical nature of such a small rural airport" .."the airport is home to several small flight training and freight operations"
An airport which has been in existence longer than Birmingham. Which is surrounded by heavily trafficed roads, an industrial estate and a car factory. Which is the headquarters of Parcelforce UK. Yup, that really sounds small and rural to me.
On congratulating the government on the white paper "..to make the best use of existing facilities, ... and to reject new airports on greenfield sites…
Surely that is EXACTLY what is happening at Coventry?
On Rugby Airport: I am inclined to answer "Only one miracle at a time"
As if Rugby airport was ever a serious threat, and as if Plaskitt made the slightest difference in the "decision" not to take it any further.
"Indeed, the first that I or any of my constituents knew about it was seeing advertisements on our regional television"
This shows an utter ignorance of developments at his local airport. Coventry's plans for passenger flights were well documented & openly expressed long before the announcement. Just exactly what sort of consultation was expected - they could not exactly discuss details of confidential commercial arrangements with the public.
"in a very short space of time, this airport will begin handling 2 million passengers a year"
The current Thomsonfly timetable is for about 1/8th of this number.
"I understand that it is also talking to about 20 other regional airports in the UK, none of which is a former second world war aerodrome and all of which are established"
Is Doncaster established?
"The only possible reason for starting at Coventry is because it is cheap: it has nothing to do with the Government's air transport strategy and everything to do with quick profit for one company"
Benbecula is cheap too. How about proximity to large cities nearby, easy road access etc....
The market should dictate where people want to fly, not the Government.
"there is a nearer and far more imminent threat than we ever considered possible when we objected to an international airport at Rugby.
Where have you been over the Midlands aviation debate Mr Plaskitt? Coventry's intentions have been well known throughout this. Even the White Paper you keep referring to mentions the 2m passengers per year terminal. Why have you done nothing about the freight flights? These are far noisier, and emit a lot more pollution. These planes are so old that they have escaped any kind of regulation. They could economically be replaced by much quieter equipment.
If you are that concerned about the growth in aviation, why have you done nothing about the tax situation on flights? It is your government which REDUCED air passenger duty.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: UK Midlands
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The High Court hearing is fixed for 14 and 15 May to decide whether the airport has to stop using the terminal.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/3663401.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/3663401.stm
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: W. Midlands
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 3rd B737-500, G-THOC, was due to arrive at Coventry Wed eve at 19:00 from Nott E.Mids, but this now appears to be delayed.
The B752, G-BYAE, will depart to Gatwick after the late evening Marseille arrival.
Jon
The B752, G-BYAE, will depart to Gatwick after the late evening Marseille arrival.
Jon
Last edited by jon01; 28th Apr 2004 at 18:18.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
had a scout around cvt the other day - why is there no sign of thompson (posters etc) anywhere to be seen. the whole set up looks like something fron that jack ruskin airline series back in the 80's. bag o' s...