Future of Ryanair at ABZ?
Fit like min?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future of Ryanair at ABZ?
Just reading about the now imminent retiral of the 732s,to be all gone by the end of the year.
The type is still used on a few routes from DUB,including ABZ.
With this in mind,I wonder what the future holds for RYR at ABZ.
RYR have not been slow in criticizing the BAA for a lack of flexibility in landing/operating charges here,with RYR particularly scathing(not surprisingly perhaps!).Most recently,they claim that charges are "horrendous" at ABZ for their DUB route.Also,they claim,given the right deal,they could attract an extra 700,000 -800,000 passengers to the city/region.BAA claim their charges are comparible with other airports,therefore we appear to have a stalemate,although I get the impression both sides may still be talking.
So will ABZ see a 738 on the DUB route.Will RYR/BAA come up with a deal to fly more routes from here(which may hinge on any runway extrnsion)or will RYR decide ABZ is too much hassle(as DUB is their only ABZ route)& pull out.
The type is still used on a few routes from DUB,including ABZ.
With this in mind,I wonder what the future holds for RYR at ABZ.
RYR have not been slow in criticizing the BAA for a lack of flexibility in landing/operating charges here,with RYR particularly scathing(not surprisingly perhaps!).Most recently,they claim that charges are "horrendous" at ABZ for their DUB route.Also,they claim,given the right deal,they could attract an extra 700,000 -800,000 passengers to the city/region.BAA claim their charges are comparible with other airports,therefore we appear to have a stalemate,although I get the impression both sides may still be talking.
So will ABZ see a 738 on the DUB route.Will RYR/BAA come up with a deal to fly more routes from here(which may hinge on any runway extrnsion)or will RYR decide ABZ is too much hassle(as DUB is their only ABZ route)& pull out.
Last edited by Richard Taylor; 21st Aug 2005 at 08:46.
Fit like min?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah Joe,keep out ! 
Actually,I'm sure BAA have said much the same thing re ABZ as they have about EDI when it comes to the r/way,ie.they will look to extend it if airlines request a need to.
Elsewhere on PPRUNE,in answer to my query in fact re any ABZ r/way extension,the 34 Localiser has been reported as having been relocated further north on the airfield,which suggests something is in the air(& not just the planes).
Some say the possible move to extend the r/way is being driven by RYR,although actually getting confirmation of this is as difficult as getting MOL to praise Civil Aviation!
So,if the 732 is replaced by the 738,is that a difference of about,say 50 seats per flight(I thought their 732s held about 130,compared to about 180 on the 738?)
At least the route is still growing!
Actually,I'm sure BAA have said much the same thing re ABZ as they have about EDI when it comes to the r/way,ie.they will look to extend it if airlines request a need to.
Elsewhere on PPRUNE,in answer to my query in fact re any ABZ r/way extension,the 34 Localiser has been reported as having been relocated further north on the airfield,which suggests something is in the air(& not just the planes).
Some say the possible move to extend the r/way is being driven by RYR,although actually getting confirmation of this is as difficult as getting MOL to praise Civil Aviation!
So,if the 732 is replaced by the 738,is that a difference of about,say 50 seats per flight(I thought their 732s held about 130,compared to about 180 on the 738?)
At least the route is still growing!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to bring this back to EDI!
But seems like the usual rubbish from Joe, whats the point in extending a runway if no one is going to use it? Of course they are going to wait to see what the airlines say!
Anyway on to ABZ, im sure the -800 will operate the route, per the likes of EDI,LBA,MAN,NCL etc etc.
They might reduce frequencies when the -800 is introduced permanatly at these airports, to compensate for the increase in seats, though I imagine the -800 with 180 odd seats is cheaper for RYR to operate than the -200 with 130 odd seats anyway.
Of course, they may not reduce frequencies just speculating what may happen.
But seems like the usual rubbish from Joe, whats the point in extending a runway if no one is going to use it? Of course they are going to wait to see what the airlines say!
Anyway on to ABZ, im sure the -800 will operate the route, per the likes of EDI,LBA,MAN,NCL etc etc.
They might reduce frequencies when the -800 is introduced permanatly at these airports, to compensate for the increase in seats, though I imagine the -800 with 180 odd seats is cheaper for RYR to operate than the -200 with 130 odd seats anyway.
Of course, they may not reduce frequencies just speculating what may happen.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys no problem operating a 738 out of ABZ .I see back in 2001 I operated a fully laden one twice on ABZ-IBZ and return without any problems on a Uk AOC and with strictly calculated performance.Engines fitted were 27k Cfms so perhaps RYR just need to pay to turn up their engines.I believe they purchased the 848cc model with rubber mats and no stereo.!!
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it, the problem of short(ish) runway length for RYR at ABZ isn't only down to the engines...it's also a brake cooling issue due to the short turn around time. The brakes won't cool enough to allow a safe stop at MTOW in the event of a high speed abort. Not sure if this becomes less of a factor if your engines are more powerful (RYR using CFM56-7B24s compared to -7B26s or -27s used by the IT operators as mentioned by Stampe).
One way around it is to restrict the payload of course...
One way around it is to restrict the payload of course...
Fit like min?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future of LO-CO's AT ABZ?
Perhaps the above SHOULD have been my title thread.
BAA like to point out that the 3 "main" lo-co's operate from here.
YEAH
...
RYR: ONE route,DUB;
EZY: ONE route,LTN;
BEE: ONE route currently,BHD & only NWI confirmed in Spring 2006,a route already with 2 carriers on it.
Since the 24H announcement,BAA say they are talking to lots of airlines about new routes.So far,Monarch have confirmed(don't get me wrong,GREAT news!)but makes you wonder,given that lots of routes are announced elsewhere,what BAA Aberdeen & potetnial airlines talk about.
I know our catchment area means we will never get the same breadth & depth of routes than elsewhere,but if the lo-co model has revolutionized air travel elsewhere,no reason why it cannot be done here too - &,after all,traffic through ABZ is on an upward trend.
Also RYR say they could attract an extra potential 700-800k paasengers to ABZ.Maybe a bit o' the Irish blarney,but shouldn't the BAA let the airline try to fulfill its claim?Isn't it all about attracting more people/airlines to use your facility...you'll generate extra revenue in any event.Better to have than have not,surely?
BAA like to point out that the 3 "main" lo-co's operate from here.
YEAH
...RYR: ONE route,DUB;
EZY: ONE route,LTN;
BEE: ONE route currently,BHD & only NWI confirmed in Spring 2006,a route already with 2 carriers on it.
Since the 24H announcement,BAA say they are talking to lots of airlines about new routes.So far,Monarch have confirmed(don't get me wrong,GREAT news!)but makes you wonder,given that lots of routes are announced elsewhere,what BAA Aberdeen & potetnial airlines talk about.
I know our catchment area means we will never get the same breadth & depth of routes than elsewhere,but if the lo-co model has revolutionized air travel elsewhere,no reason why it cannot be done here too - &,after all,traffic through ABZ is on an upward trend.
Also RYR say they could attract an extra potential 700-800k paasengers to ABZ.Maybe a bit o' the Irish blarney,but shouldn't the BAA let the airline try to fulfill its claim?Isn't it all about attracting more people/airlines to use your facility...you'll generate extra revenue in any event.Better to have than have not,surely?
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Al tube.
Posts: 464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being a 737 driver, I'd still be suprised if Monarch can fly full A320s to and from Malaga but a 737-800 is restricted on flights to Dublin (or anything upto two hours flight time away for that matter).
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brake cooling following a routine landing and planning a quick turnround could be afactor fortunately I,ve never been involved with the squalid loco end of the industry.A simple solution of course would be to schedule an adequate turnround say 45 minutes!!.With regard to rejected take off if you,ve done one I suspect brake cooling for a subsequent departure is likely to least of your problems.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
guys
ryanair has 26 K engines on the 800's
you can choose to derate on the FMC to 24k or 22 k if you are light enough and the runway is long enough
there used to be a 27 K Bump option but that has now been removed - 26 K is now the maximum , and it is used alot in other destinations eg. Rome CIA
ryanair has 26 K engines on the 800's
you can choose to derate on the FMC to 24k or 22 k if you are light enough and the runway is long enough
there used to be a 27 K Bump option but that has now been removed - 26 K is now the maximum , and it is used alot in other destinations eg. Rome CIA
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Glasgow, U.K.
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who gives a crap if Ryannair have to stop operating out of ADN.
It's a total nonsense that taxpayers are expected to fund runway extensions just to allow scumbag O'leary to shove a few more million in his soiled trouser pockets.
There is no moral case for allowing them low or no landing fees when legitimate Airlines that are in the business of providing custymers with a decent service have to pay in full!
Make them compete on a level playing field!!
It's a total nonsense that taxpayers are expected to fund runway extensions just to allow scumbag O'leary to shove a few more million in his soiled trouser pockets.
There is no moral case for allowing them low or no landing fees when legitimate Airlines that are in the business of providing custymers with a decent service have to pay in full!
Make them compete on a level playing field!!
Do I detect another Ryanair-bashing thread developing? What makes other airlines "legitimate", and Ryanair not so. Is a legitmate airlines one that make negligable profits, and is saddled with out dated working practises?
That said, runways cost money, and in a commercial environment that investment needs to see a return, so under these circumstances any airport operator has to weigh up the cost / benefit carefully before starting out with planning, public enquires and the like. I don't believe threats by Ryanair to pull out would make an iota of difference.
That said, runways cost money, and in a commercial environment that investment needs to see a return, so under these circumstances any airport operator has to weigh up the cost / benefit carefully before starting out with planning, public enquires and the like. I don't believe threats by Ryanair to pull out would make an iota of difference.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guy's, Whats the big deal re RYR 800's & an ABZ runway extension?
I recall some years ago transiting through ABZ on an Ait Transat flight routing YYZ - ABZ - NCL. Can't remember whether a 1011 or 757 on that occasion but whatever, on take off were never anywhere near any trees or hedges ! Can't believe that a 737-800 has not a substantially improved performance over 757 / 1011's.
It was also a warm summer morning and flat calm, probably pretty unusual "performance adverse" conditions up your end !
I recall some years ago transiting through ABZ on an Ait Transat flight routing YYZ - ABZ - NCL. Can't remember whether a 1011 or 757 on that occasion but whatever, on take off were never anywhere near any trees or hedges ! Can't believe that a 737-800 has not a substantially improved performance over 757 / 1011's.
It was also a warm summer morning and flat calm, probably pretty unusual "performance adverse" conditions up your end !
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skyman very few commercial airliners have a better field performance than the757 it was designed for hot and high operations and is delightfully overpowered and overbraked for most operations a real dream ship.The 738 is a good aeroplane but not in the same league performance wise it is nearing the limit of the designs stretch capability ,it has less braking capability and comparitively high approach speeds to address tail ground clearance issues.They are both great aircraft as always from Boeing!!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a total nonsense that taxpayers are expected to fund runway extensions