Airsouthwest Aircraft! (Merged)
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought the ATR72 would prove a bit hairy for PLH. ASW will be a little hamstrung for ever by that runway. Would have thought the Q400 would prove a handful as well.
Even "Little Dog" has issues out of there I hear.
Even "Little Dog" has issues out of there I hear.
Scourge of Bad Airline Management!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Global Nomad
Age: 55
Posts: 1,094
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6G use the ATR42, not the 72. Any 6G pilots want to comment on their experiences of PLH??
Just because you can get an RJ in there now and again doesn't mean you would want to do it year round.
You can get a 747-400 into CWL - but I would worry if someone planned it in August with a full payload....
TA
Just because you can get an RJ in there now and again doesn't mean you would want to do it year round.
You can get a 747-400 into CWL - but I would worry if someone planned it in August with a full payload....
TA
Guest
Posts: n/a
terrier and david wilding
The only sectors BACX cancelled on a regular basis were the evening BRS-PLH and subsequently PLH-BRS in the morning mainly because PLH weather was crap, and for the following day's operation it would be easier for all concerned to leave the DH8 at BRS. For tech problems Titan Airways were used and if the ATR's GBUPS or GZAPJ weren't available we'd be left with the 146 which could get in and out of PLH but empty. Operationally the PLH-NQY-LGW route was protected as best we could but with no standby a/c and hideousley poor third party maintenance support the route was killed. WE NEVER DID PUT ANY 146 INTO PLH.
Despite the rumours...the route was profitable when BACX operated it but not profitable enough. Once we tried positioning a spare ATP from MAN-LGW to ops LGW-NQY-LGW but it was a total disaster........you try you're best for the pax but it doesn't always work. The ATP crew had never been anywhere NQY before. MAN handling delayed the departure due to....well....being MAN and then NQY fogged out so the pax that should have left LGW at 1720 ended up no further than BRS at 2300 then faced a coach journey BRS-NQY. When NQY closes at 2200 and EXT seem to operate Monday - Friday 9-5pm there isn't alot of options. Good luck to Air Southwest as despite being ex Brymon aircraft and crew they're doing a far better job than BACX ever attempted to do.
Previous attempts with the -42 have resulted in bags being off-loaded or not carried at all, especially in the summer months and even the Dash-8-300 became payload restricted in certain conditions. Unless the current runway work at PLH to increase the TODA/LDA on rwy 13/31 makes any difference.....?
ps TITAN....why did you get rid of the ATR's? they were a god-send for covering prop sectors....
The only sectors BACX cancelled on a regular basis were the evening BRS-PLH and subsequently PLH-BRS in the morning mainly because PLH weather was crap, and for the following day's operation it would be easier for all concerned to leave the DH8 at BRS. For tech problems Titan Airways were used and if the ATR's GBUPS or GZAPJ weren't available we'd be left with the 146 which could get in and out of PLH but empty. Operationally the PLH-NQY-LGW route was protected as best we could but with no standby a/c and hideousley poor third party maintenance support the route was killed. WE NEVER DID PUT ANY 146 INTO PLH.
Despite the rumours...the route was profitable when BACX operated it but not profitable enough. Once we tried positioning a spare ATP from MAN-LGW to ops LGW-NQY-LGW but it was a total disaster........you try you're best for the pax but it doesn't always work. The ATP crew had never been anywhere NQY before. MAN handling delayed the departure due to....well....being MAN and then NQY fogged out so the pax that should have left LGW at 1720 ended up no further than BRS at 2300 then faced a coach journey BRS-NQY. When NQY closes at 2200 and EXT seem to operate Monday - Friday 9-5pm there isn't alot of options. Good luck to Air Southwest as despite being ex Brymon aircraft and crew they're doing a far better job than BACX ever attempted to do.
Previous attempts with the -42 have resulted in bags being off-loaded or not carried at all, especially in the summer months and even the Dash-8-300 became payload restricted in certain conditions. Unless the current runway work at PLH to increase the TODA/LDA on rwy 13/31 makes any difference.....?
ps TITAN....why did you get rid of the ATR's? they were a god-send for covering prop sectors....
Last edited by Dash-7 lover; 13th Dec 2004 at 19:20.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: where ever i wake up!!!!
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will be a Dash 8-300 from citiexpress ,yankee juliet or yankee india BACX disposing of both early 2005 why would air south west get a 146 or an ATR when there whole fleet of 2 airframes are dashes?? its what the crews and background staff have known and operated for more years than they care to remember!!YJ and YI have been into PLH thousands of times both A/C are knackered though!!!! was ashamed to be a crew member on YJ couple of weeks ago the interior was awful how much speed tape can you use to hold an aircraft together!!??
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRJ needs 5,000ft+, PLH has less than 3500 and from the aerial photos I have seen has no room to expand. Even Q400s need 4000ft+.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite MarkD Q400s don't need more than 4000ft they are after all LCY capable ( a 1200m/3960ft runway) That said, I think you're right it might be a bit tight at PLH. I suspect thought that in this case it's more a question of economics than performance, even though -300 lease rates have gone up loads in the last eight or so months (so much so that I believe ASW has bought rather than leased the third aircraft) they are still significantly cheaper than Q400s.
we_never_ change is right...there's plenty of space on the CRJ production line right now (05 planned production of the 200 has been cut by 30 from this year and nay be cut again if DL goes into Ch11).
The Q400 is a different story though, with production rates at a couple a month planned for 05 it's going to be difficult to get your hands on a Q400 for awhile especially if FlyBE sign to convert their options - which I have on good authority they are very close to doing.
Nah I suspect that ASW will stick with the -300s adding the odd route here and there and grow the fleet to five -300s over the next 18 months... 2 years
we_never_ change is right...there's plenty of space on the CRJ production line right now (05 planned production of the 200 has been cut by 30 from this year and nay be cut again if DL goes into Ch11).
The Q400 is a different story though, with production rates at a couple a month planned for 05 it's going to be difficult to get your hands on a Q400 for awhile especially if FlyBE sign to convert their options - which I have on good authority they are very close to doing.
Nah I suspect that ASW will stick with the -300s adding the odd route here and there and grow the fleet to five -300s over the next 18 months... 2 years
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ace
I take a keen interest in the Q series since they are built a few miles North of where I sit
YTZ (Toronto City) has 4002ft and is deemed marginal for Q400 but gets higher summer temps than LCY and PLH!
As for Q300 availability, have flybe got shot of all their Q3s yet?
I take a keen interest in the Q series since they are built a few miles North of where I sit
YTZ (Toronto City) has 4002ft and is deemed marginal for Q400 but gets higher summer temps than LCY and PLH!
As for Q300 availability, have flybe got shot of all their Q3s yet?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Horsham UK
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it depends on how marginal...what payload and so on restrictions you'd encounter. I was scrabbling around for the Q400 manuals I have around here somewhere so I could offer the book numbers but can't seem to put my hands on them (they could be in the loft I supose
)
Weren't Regco going to operate an all Q400 fleet out of CYTZ? I wonder what payload/range hits they thought they might get in summer?
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the 400 truly the mutts nuts -
MarkD check your PM
) Weren't Regco going to operate an all Q400 fleet out of CYTZ? I wonder what payload/range hits they thought they might get in summer?
Don't get me wrong I'm a big fan of the 400 truly the mutts nuts -
MarkD check your PM
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problems at Plymouth are not only the short runway, but also the steep approach, the steep slope, and only having an ILS on one end. This frequently means having to take a tail wind on landing. How would a Q400 fair landing at Plymouth (LDA 1045m, 0.89% upslope) with a 20kt tail wind? These are the kind of conditions you could face. I think you’ll find that the Dash 8 300 is just about the biggest and best for the job.