New Aircraft For Jet2?
6 will be available soon 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult to explain quickly & I am no expert and I am sure there are plenty better qualified who will correct me where / if I'm wrong.
Runway length & obstacle clearance are limiting factors at LBA.
The further you go, the more fuel you need.
More fuel means more weight & that restricts payload.
It is only a problem off one end of the runway but there is little point planning for anything other than a realistic worse case scenario. Eg You may get a full flight off runway 14 but thats not much use if you can only get airborne with 130 from runway 32!
So you could only do the canaries by restricting payload (i.e. the number of passengers) That means the cost per passenger goes up and that makes the whole thing less attractive.
There is also the issue of time. An aircraft doing short hops within the UK or to closer mainland Europe destiantions will fly more sectors and probably make more money than a plane going to say TFS.
Thats why you don't see the area so well covered by the lo-cos.
I'm not at the number crunching end of the business (my title probably indicates where my knowledge lies!) but this is my (limited) understanding of the situation.
Never say never tho!
Hope that helps!
Runway length & obstacle clearance are limiting factors at LBA.
The further you go, the more fuel you need.
More fuel means more weight & that restricts payload.
It is only a problem off one end of the runway but there is little point planning for anything other than a realistic worse case scenario. Eg You may get a full flight off runway 14 but thats not much use if you can only get airborne with 130 from runway 32!
So you could only do the canaries by restricting payload (i.e. the number of passengers) That means the cost per passenger goes up and that makes the whole thing less attractive.
There is also the issue of time. An aircraft doing short hops within the UK or to closer mainland Europe destiantions will fly more sectors and probably make more money than a plane going to say TFS.
Thats why you don't see the area so well covered by the lo-cos.
I'm not at the number crunching end of the business (my title probably indicates where my knowledge lies!) but this is my (limited) understanding of the situation.
Never say never tho!
Hope that helps!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SE of Compton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although what opsgeezer has said is undoubtedly true - I've been told that there is something specific to the type of CFM56 fitted to the batch of 300s operated by Jet2 (former Ansett machines) that preclude flights (with LBA's runway length) to the Canaries.
Note that 737-300s have previously operated direct to TFS & ACE from LBA (Air Europa being an example), however in such cases these have the more capable version of the '56 fitted. I've been told that the Jet2 aircraft can be made 'Canaries capable' but at a price!
Of course the 2 recent additions to the Channex inventory of 737-300s (to which 682ft AMSL refers) may already have this engine and might hint at their raison d'etre! However I now understand there are 2 former Ansett 737-300s stored in Singapore which might be our mystery machines (serial numbers 24302 & 24303) and one suspects they are of a similar ilk to their sisterships!
One wonders whether the addition of blended winglets might give the 300 enough legs to reach the Canaries? Remember that Air Plus Comet have such a machine.
Although TFS isn't a traditional LOCO destination, as opsgeezer states particularly in terms of sector length, that's not a big concern for Jet2. The announced winter programme still has loads of downtime for the fleet and there is ample capacity for a couple of weekly sorties to TFS & ACE based on 7 LBA units. When you consider that TFS seat only capacity will be lower this winter because of MYT reductions and the Planetair demise then there ought to be some punters out there.
Time will tell!
Note that 737-300s have previously operated direct to TFS & ACE from LBA (Air Europa being an example), however in such cases these have the more capable version of the '56 fitted. I've been told that the Jet2 aircraft can be made 'Canaries capable' but at a price!
Of course the 2 recent additions to the Channex inventory of 737-300s (to which 682ft AMSL refers) may already have this engine and might hint at their raison d'etre! However I now understand there are 2 former Ansett 737-300s stored in Singapore which might be our mystery machines (serial numbers 24302 & 24303) and one suspects they are of a similar ilk to their sisterships!
One wonders whether the addition of blended winglets might give the 300 enough legs to reach the Canaries? Remember that Air Plus Comet have such a machine.
Although TFS isn't a traditional LOCO destination, as opsgeezer states particularly in terms of sector length, that's not a big concern for Jet2. The announced winter programme still has loads of downtime for the fleet and there is ample capacity for a couple of weekly sorties to TFS & ACE based on 7 LBA units. When you consider that TFS seat only capacity will be lower this winter because of MYT reductions and the Planetair demise then there ought to be some punters out there.
Time will tell!
Last edited by 14 loop; 12th Jul 2004 at 01:35.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft at LBA are all B2 powered. I believe that this is the tweak of which you speak!! If there is a further tweak I don't know. Perhaps the aircraft you spoke of had less seats?? - that would make a difference. "Untweaked" is even worse. The next aircraft to arrive, LE is rumoured to be B1 powered. If this aircraft were to be LBA based it would be limited to the shorter runs (BFS/AMS/CDG/maybe PRG at a stretch!)
It would be able to get back from some of the further away places with a full load but thats not an awful lot of help!!
As you spotted the aircraft in SIN are the new machines. As to what power rating they will have I don't know.
As for spare time on the fleet this winter, there's a fair bit of heavy maintenence coming up so don't be so sure that theres as much free time as you'd expect!
It would be able to get back from some of the further away places with a full load but thats not an awful lot of help!!
As you spotted the aircraft in SIN are the new machines. As to what power rating they will have I don't know.
As for spare time on the fleet this winter, there's a fair bit of heavy maintenence coming up so don't be so sure that theres as much free time as you'd expect!
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SE of Compton
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks opsgeezer for that detailed info.
I flew on a full Air Europa 737-300 Y148 many years ago LBA-ACE (on a flight that should have operated ex MAN but the fire staff strike caused it to divert to LBA along with an ELAL 707!!) and it operated direct. It was a cold winter's evening however and a mid summer day might have been a different proposition!
I've been doing a bit of homework and have found that there are 3 variants of the CFM56-3 , the B1 and B2 which you mention and also the C1. Respective max thrusts are 20,000lb, 22,000lb and 23,500lb. The B1 is fitted to just 300s & 500s, the B2 to either 300s & 400s and the C1 is available to all three variants. I imagine that a C1 engined 500 would be a bit of a hotrod!
Production has now ceased on the CFM56-3, however the information that I have read doesn't make it clear whether the different variants are achieved by a mod or whether it requires an engine change (if feasible). However there are probably enough C1s in storage in the US that could be donors.
Interesting info about this winter's heavy maint requirements. I still hope they are able to look at a few other destinations nevertheless!
I flew on a full Air Europa 737-300 Y148 many years ago LBA-ACE (on a flight that should have operated ex MAN but the fire staff strike caused it to divert to LBA along with an ELAL 707!!) and it operated direct. It was a cold winter's evening however and a mid summer day might have been a different proposition!
I've been doing a bit of homework and have found that there are 3 variants of the CFM56-3 , the B1 and B2 which you mention and also the C1. Respective max thrusts are 20,000lb, 22,000lb and 23,500lb. The B1 is fitted to just 300s & 500s, the B2 to either 300s & 400s and the C1 is available to all three variants. I imagine that a C1 engined 500 would be a bit of a hotrod!
Production has now ceased on the CFM56-3, however the information that I have read doesn't make it clear whether the different variants are achieved by a mod or whether it requires an engine change (if feasible). However there are probably enough C1s in storage in the US that could be donors.
Interesting info about this winter's heavy maint requirements. I still hope they are able to look at a few other destinations nevertheless!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: LBA
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I have been told by a couple of guys up the front... winglets reduce the cross wind landing limit, which would probably not be a good thing to have at LBA.
Also, LE is confirmed to have B1 powered engines. This a/c will be used on shorter runs, AMS/BFS and CDG, and also used as a standby a/c for other routes... loads permitting. I believe it is planned for LE to be a standby a/c for other channex bases too... not just for ex LBA ops.
Also, LE is confirmed to have B1 powered engines. This a/c will be used on shorter runs, AMS/BFS and CDG, and also used as a standby a/c for other routes... loads permitting. I believe it is planned for LE to be a standby a/c for other channex bases too... not just for ex LBA ops.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another factor which restricts many carriers is an artificially restricted MTOW to reduce on-route and landing charges. This means many carriers operate aircraft at a more restricted figure than is necessary.
This is easily rectified as it is effectively only a paperwork exercise. However, the route network needs to make it viable. If you only need the higher weights for 1 long sortie a week (I'm not suggest this is the case here, just an example), then you end up paying all the higher ATC and landing charges for all the other short sectors where it is not required.
Some operators have a range of 'heavyweight' and 'lightweight' aircraft to allow for this, rather than having all aircraft capable of the longer sectors which puts up the cost considerably.
This is easily rectified as it is effectively only a paperwork exercise. However, the route network needs to make it viable. If you only need the higher weights for 1 long sortie a week (I'm not suggest this is the case here, just an example), then you end up paying all the higher ATC and landing charges for all the other short sectors where it is not required.
Some operators have a range of 'heavyweight' and 'lightweight' aircraft to allow for this, rather than having all aircraft capable of the longer sectors which puts up the cost considerably.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: England
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not totally sure about the economics of -400s, but aren't they expensive as you need 4 Cabin Crew for 168 Pax?
Average of @42/cc, whereas -300s are averaging @49/cc.
(-800s seat 189pax average @47/cc)
Average of @42/cc, whereas -300s are averaging @49/cc.
(-800s seat 189pax average @47/cc)
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IN TRIM!!!
That's right about the airlines reducing MTOW for landing charges etc!! the runway length at LBA is not a problem it's proved that in the past the problem is the MTOW JET2 B737-300 ave a MTOW of 59999KGS when I know other operaters using the same a/c at figures way over that, JET2 AGP flts a very restricted from LBA not coz of RWY length but because of MTOW they very rarley restrict the TOW for their departures however weather permitting it has been known I've had it, Typical take off fuel for JET2 737 to AGP is approx 10500 - 11000kgs and he will burn in between 7000 - 8000kgs and then he is very close to the boarder line with no restriction so there is know way a TFS will be done on a full flt unless they change the MTOW TFS flts usually burn 10000 - 12000kgs of fuel leaving them with a Take off fuel of 14000-16000kgs which my freinds they will be so over weight!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!!!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Crawley
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a very simple solution to the range payload problem for the 737 out of restricted runways. Air Europe fitted its 733's with identically rated engines to those it used on the 734. This enabled non-stop operations from Skiathos to London. If Channex were to study this they would find that non-stop operations from LBA to Larnaca and the Canaries would be easy.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Colegate!!
Yes I agree but still they are using restricted take off weights for cheaper landing fees, now they could have the most powerfull engines in the world but untill they they lift the MTOW they're not going any further than AGP.
It's fact,
CHEERS!!!!!!
It's fact,
CHEERS!!!!!!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THE FLYING SCOTSMAN.
Well I assure you that JET2 B737-300 lift more that 58000kgs from 32 it's happened quite a few times as a matter of fact.
CHEERS!!!!!!!
P.s Air Europa used to do it, but mind you we shouldn't use that shower of ****e as an example, they always used to give me incorrect fuel figures to show them under weight!!
CHEERS!!!!!!!
P.s Air Europa used to do it, but mind you we shouldn't use that shower of ****e as an example, they always used to give me incorrect fuel figures to show them under weight!!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: York
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok try and name any low cost airlines with a 757, thats not to easy is it, however the list for low cost airlines with 737s is endless. Why are 737s so popular i mean i have to say A230s are better planes.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brighton, England
Age: 43
Posts: 708
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'low cost' (some low cost ish) airlines with 757s are/were/will be Greece Airways/Air Scotland, Song, Thaijet, Orient Thai, Smartjet and Flyjetgreen.
Regards
Mike
Regards
Mike
