Cityjet
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Deep inth Norhtern Hills
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Hope in Hell !!!!
Florence and London City are probally the most prifitable routes that Air France group operate.
Under the scope clause, they cant operate any a/c that Air France use. Yes 3 yrs ago the 737s were rumoured to be going to City Jet, but alas with Air France taking over KLM, I am sure they will be using the ex Buzz 146s for a long while.
Plus City Jet management prefer the longer trips round the world(Better Food And Wine) Perusing Boeing 717/ Embraer/ Dornier But alas allways head back to good old Woodford!!!!!
Fond Memories...............................................
Florence and London City are probally the most prifitable routes that Air France group operate.
Under the scope clause, they cant operate any a/c that Air France use. Yes 3 yrs ago the 737s were rumoured to be going to City Jet, but alas with Air France taking over KLM, I am sure they will be using the ex Buzz 146s for a long while.
Plus City Jet management prefer the longer trips round the world(Better Food And Wine) Perusing Boeing 717/ Embraer/ Dornier But alas allways head back to good old Woodford!!!!!
Fond Memories...............................................
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: europe
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this is great,
is this forum about future aquisitions for cityjet or about steep approaches into lcy, which is only 5.5deg if my house was that levrel id be happy.
318 sounds the business is my favourite rumour.
is this forum about future aquisitions for cityjet or about steep approaches into lcy, which is only 5.5deg if my house was that levrel id be happy.
318 sounds the business is my favourite rumour.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'd be very surprised if they went to a 318, for two reasons - noise and parking. From what I remember, reverse thrust is an absolute no-no for noise reasons, and LCY is extremely noise-sensitive (which is seen in their opening and closing times). As far as parking goes, I took part in a nose-in parking trial a few years ago, and the idea was eventually binned because the 146 tail infringes the runway vertical clearances. The A318 tail is a lot taller.
The other question is whether a 318 approaching at a very low power setting could spool up safely for a go-around - in the 146 we kept a high-ish power setting (58% from memory) against full airbrake and full flap for that very reason. I would think that the 146 is a lot more draggy in that configuration than a A318 could ever be.
Also, I doubt very much that much extension will ever happen. During the nose-in parking trials, the consultants who did the job told us that the only reason that the airport is even allowed to exist, is a complete prohibition on any lengthening of the runway. Just getting the turning area was major exercise. They have been talking about new stands for years, but it is technically expensive (the existing stands are mostly sitting over the top of an old dry dock, and have water underneath them).
The rumour I have heard is that Cityjet are about to acquire a whole fleet of Avro RJs from another operator (apparently about 25 aircraft).
The newest Avro RJ is 14 years newer than the oldest A320, so they can hardly be accused of being old aircraft. The 146s are past their sell-by date though (particularly the Cityjet ones, which are all very old).
The other question is whether a 318 approaching at a very low power setting could spool up safely for a go-around - in the 146 we kept a high-ish power setting (58% from memory) against full airbrake and full flap for that very reason. I would think that the 146 is a lot more draggy in that configuration than a A318 could ever be.
Also, I doubt very much that much extension will ever happen. During the nose-in parking trials, the consultants who did the job told us that the only reason that the airport is even allowed to exist, is a complete prohibition on any lengthening of the runway. Just getting the turning area was major exercise. They have been talking about new stands for years, but it is technically expensive (the existing stands are mostly sitting over the top of an old dry dock, and have water underneath them).
The rumour I have heard is that Cityjet are about to acquire a whole fleet of Avro RJs from another operator (apparently about 25 aircraft).
The newest Avro RJ is 14 years newer than the oldest A320, so they can hardly be accused of being old aircraft. The 146s are past their sell-by date though (particularly the Cityjet ones, which are all very old).
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 899
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Avro RJs mentioned (that Cityjet maybe aquiring) are the ones operated for Northwest by Meseba (?). These were some of the last examples to roll off the production line
Fried Chicken
Fried Chicken
Last edited by Fried_Chicken; 30th Dec 2005 at 13:14.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's always the two RJ70s stuck on the Isle of Man...
Farrell
CityJet could change to CRJs for nonLCY routes but CRJ900s need 400-600m more runway than LCY has so I suppose a mix of CRJ/ARJ could happen.
Farrell
CityJet could change to CRJs for nonLCY routes but CRJ900s need 400-600m more runway than LCY has so I suppose a mix of CRJ/ARJ could happen.
Last edited by MarkD; 30th Dec 2005 at 13:31.
Bear Behind
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Yerp
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOR - A318 and LCY - you're right if you are assuming that the A318 will use the existing stands. However, if you read what I wrote again and you'll see that that isn't what they're looking at. If you move them away from the terminal then the obstacle surface would be freed up. No problem at all for the spool up - remeber the A318 is already certificated for 5.5 degree with 7.5 degree abuse case (that is what is required for LCY ops). Extension not required for A318 - it has more than enough oomph to get more range than the 146 or the ARJ in and out of LCY. As for reverse thrust - certificated landing performance uses brakes only - no reverse thrust. That means that the performance is more than adequate without having to resort to thrust reversers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus is trying to get the A318 certified for very steep approaches etc. bot only because of airline operations into LCY, but also (and probably mainly) to sell the A318-based ACJ. It will be a big selling advantage if the A318-based ACJ can operate into airfields where the standard ACJ or the BBJs struggle.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
panda-k-bear
Where are you going to move them to? You can't get them physically far enough away from the runway, only at a different point along it's length - and even then you would still need a dispensation for a higher tail. From memory, the required lateral clearance from the runway is beyond the water on both sides.
I'd be very interested to know what the A318 LDR is at a typical high landing weight. I doubt very much that it is better than the 146, and landing the 146 there can be a challenge, especially with a wet runway. And it might have the oomph to get off a 1200m runway with a full load, but I wonder what it's single-engine performance is like - LCY has a fairly challenging departure profile.
More to the point, if it was so easy, why hasn't anybody done it? There are plenty of A318 operators with a good reason for going into LCY. If the aircraft was capable of it, it would at least have been certified by now.
Where are you going to move them to? You can't get them physically far enough away from the runway, only at a different point along it's length - and even then you would still need a dispensation for a higher tail. From memory, the required lateral clearance from the runway is beyond the water on both sides.
I'd be very interested to know what the A318 LDR is at a typical high landing weight. I doubt very much that it is better than the 146, and landing the 146 there can be a challenge, especially with a wet runway. And it might have the oomph to get off a 1200m runway with a full load, but I wonder what it's single-engine performance is like - LCY has a fairly challenging departure profile.
More to the point, if it was so easy, why hasn't anybody done it? There are plenty of A318 operators with a good reason for going into LCY. If the aircraft was capable of it, it would at least have been certified by now.
Last edited by MOR; 31st Dec 2005 at 05:22.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a different situation, Druk Air chose the A319 rather than the A318 for their home airport in Bhutan, where they have to deal with a big obstacle at one end of the runway. So, would the A319 have a better take off performance out of LCY?
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
MOR which A318 operators - Mexicana? Frontier??
http://www.planespotters.net/Product...318/index.html
http://www.planespotters.net/Product...318/index.html
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
I think Druk air selected the A319 over the 318 because of payload considerations, perticuarly during the daylight hours. Paro airport is VERY high, VERY hot, and VERY restricted. 319 allowed them to carry out daylight ops, the RJs did not, even before sunrise they vere highly payload restricted.
As such dosent the 318 have the same wing as the 319/320/321 so performance should be quite good, simply a case of uprating the engines to 319 stds, if required, for ops ex LCY. Not necessary tho, Id imagine, as even U2s 319s are sprightly when (near)fully loaded(156 pax ex AGP-LGW and baggage)so performance,on the way up any way! shouldnt be a problem!!
As such dosent the 318 have the same wing as the 319/320/321 so performance should be quite good, simply a case of uprating the engines to 319 stds, if required, for ops ex LCY. Not necessary tho, Id imagine, as even U2s 319s are sprightly when (near)fully loaded(156 pax ex AGP-LGW and baggage)so performance,on the way up any way! shouldnt be a problem!!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
I mentioned Druk Air which I had seen in a Just Planes Video ( one of the best in that series). I am sure all the departures in their 146s were daylight. They have a huge rock at the end of the runway, and they have to do a very quick turn to fly past this rock.
They originally wanted to replace the 146s with the RJX that BAE cancelled.
BAE might regret not doing that plane, which did promised considerable improvements over the 146/RJ-100
They originally wanted to replace the 146s with the RJX that BAE cancelled.
BAE might regret not doing that plane, which did promised considerable improvements over the 146/RJ-100
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 50
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
alangirvan
indeed - BAe cancelled RJX just before Fokker went to the wall with their 100, and left the field to CRJ900, B717, B736, A318 and arguably the principal beneficiary - ERJ170/175/190/195.
MOR
The AF 318s is pretty much the basis for this thread, but have any of the other operators you mention got 318s yet? Comlux website reports only C604s.
The A318 Elite (smaller ACJ) seems to be Airbus' principal reason for 5.5 deg cert rather than standard 318 ops...
indeed - BAe cancelled RJX just before Fokker went to the wall with their 100, and left the field to CRJ900, B717, B736, A318 and arguably the principal beneficiary - ERJ170/175/190/195.
MOR
The AF 318s is pretty much the basis for this thread, but have any of the other operators you mention got 318s yet? Comlux website reports only C604s.
The A318 Elite (smaller ACJ) seems to be Airbus' principal reason for 5.5 deg cert rather than standard 318 ops...
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Euroland
Posts: 959
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
Yeah that was my point really, the Elite has been ordered by Comlux (3) and NAS (5 plus 5 options). As they are both VIP-type fleets, LCY would suit them perfectly.
See http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...318_Elite.html and http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...te_Comlux.html
Not sure what the difference is between an Elite and a standard 318, apart from the interior...
See http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...318_Elite.html and http://www.airbus.com/en/presscentre...te_Comlux.html
Not sure what the difference is between an Elite and a standard 318, apart from the interior...
Bear Behind
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Yerp
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
MOR
Sorry, not been Pruning for a while - cardinal sin, I know. I think I said this in my earlier post but here it is again. LCY are considering building another apron, parallel with the runway and out over the water. They have been for some time. If it were made a little bigger than the current plans, then the A318, parked with tail out from the runway, would, I believe, be clear of the obstacle surface - which is effectively a cone spreading out from the edge of the runway at (if I recall correctly) about 6 degrees. There is another spot that LCY could consider near the business aviation end that could also take the aircraft. A318 performance is better, in all respects, than the 146 or ARJ, including take off, engine out and landing. The first are, presumably, due to the fact that the engine is capable of powering an A321 (all be it rerated). In other words there is a lot of power available. As to why is nobody doing it, well Airbus only just got the steep approach certification just before Christmas. Presumably now they'll have to do some sort of demonstration at the airport itself, as Embraer had to with the 170, and even then ops can only start when the new apron(s) construction is completed. From my understanding there are no issues on the aircraft side, only on the airport side.
Sorry, not been Pruning for a while - cardinal sin, I know. I think I said this in my earlier post but here it is again. LCY are considering building another apron, parallel with the runway and out over the water. They have been for some time. If it were made a little bigger than the current plans, then the A318, parked with tail out from the runway, would, I believe, be clear of the obstacle surface - which is effectively a cone spreading out from the edge of the runway at (if I recall correctly) about 6 degrees. There is another spot that LCY could consider near the business aviation end that could also take the aircraft. A318 performance is better, in all respects, than the 146 or ARJ, including take off, engine out and landing. The first are, presumably, due to the fact that the engine is capable of powering an A321 (all be it rerated). In other words there is a lot of power available. As to why is nobody doing it, well Airbus only just got the steep approach certification just before Christmas. Presumably now they'll have to do some sort of demonstration at the airport itself, as Embraer had to with the 170, and even then ops can only start when the new apron(s) construction is completed. From my understanding there are no issues on the aircraft side, only on the airport side.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Cityjet In A318 ??
This article from Flight International regarding short field improvements to the 737 - the article mentions London City as an airport that Boeing are considering. LCY could be the airport that gives the A318 and the 737-600 a reason to exist.
The Flight article does not say anything about how the 737 would cope with the glideslope at LCY - if the A318 can do it, the 736 should also be able to do it?
Short-field 737 goes into flight test
Boeing expects to begin flight tests in January of a short-field performance enhancement package for the 737 Next Generation family, which is expected to markedly reduce take-off and landing runs or significantly increase payload performance.
Launched initially to enable the Brazilian carrier GOL to operate larger 737-800s into the restricted 1,465m (4,800ft)-long runway of Rio de Janeiro's Santos Dumont airport, various elements of the package are expected to offer benefits across the entire range of Next Generation models, says 737 chief project engineer Mike Delaney.
The improvements could apply to operators flying into "places like Florence, London City, the Faroe Islands and several areas in Japan", says Delaney.
The enhancement package consists of elements that can be applied to the longer-body -800/900ER models as well as a wider set of improvements that can be offered for other family members. Specific to the -800/900ER are sealed slats for all take-off flap positions, and a two-position tailskid. On current aircraft, the slats are sealed for take-off flap positions 1° and 5°, and are gapped for 10°, 15°, 25° and over. The change will see the sealed positions extend through 25° flap.
Next Generation generic configuration changes include Krueger flap seal actuation to allow the device to be "left sealed for take-off and up out of the way [open] for approach and landing," says Delaney.
Flight spoiler deflection on the ground will also be increased from 30°, to match the maximum 60° of the ground spoilers. The operation of the flight spoilers in normal flight will be unchanged, he says. "But when it lands all the spoilers will come up to a nominal 60° throw for greater braking performance."
Another subtle change across all models will be a reduction in the camber, or "splay" of the main landing gear. "We've brought it in by just over 1°, which increases the uniformity of braking across all four brakes and will help tyre [wear] issues we've seen across the fleet. It's a maintenance benefit."
Also changing will be the engine idle-thrust delay time, which is being reduced from 5s to 2s. The change, effected through the CFM International CFM56-7B's full authority digital engine control, will "bring forward idle thrust off the aircraft faster", thereby helping shorten the landing roll.
The Krueger flap change is applicable to all models and will boost landing performance, as will the idle thrust delay change. The increased flight spoiler deflection, also applicable across all models, will improve both take-off and landing. The -800/900ER specific changes will boost take-off performance in the case of the leading-edge slat seal change, and landing performance in the case of the two-position tailskid.
Boeing expects the package to reduce the typical landing run of a winglet-equipped -800 by up to 100m, or increase the landing weight by as much as 4,730kg (10,400lb); while the take-off length could be reduced by more than 70m or the take-off weight performance boosted by more than 1,710kg.
The three-month flight-test effort is expected to run from late January through to late April, with the delivery of the first fully equipped aircraft due around mid-June 2006.
The Flight article does not say anything about how the 737 would cope with the glideslope at LCY - if the A318 can do it, the 736 should also be able to do it?
Short-field 737 goes into flight test
Boeing expects to begin flight tests in January of a short-field performance enhancement package for the 737 Next Generation family, which is expected to markedly reduce take-off and landing runs or significantly increase payload performance.
Launched initially to enable the Brazilian carrier GOL to operate larger 737-800s into the restricted 1,465m (4,800ft)-long runway of Rio de Janeiro's Santos Dumont airport, various elements of the package are expected to offer benefits across the entire range of Next Generation models, says 737 chief project engineer Mike Delaney.
The improvements could apply to operators flying into "places like Florence, London City, the Faroe Islands and several areas in Japan", says Delaney.
The enhancement package consists of elements that can be applied to the longer-body -800/900ER models as well as a wider set of improvements that can be offered for other family members. Specific to the -800/900ER are sealed slats for all take-off flap positions, and a two-position tailskid. On current aircraft, the slats are sealed for take-off flap positions 1° and 5°, and are gapped for 10°, 15°, 25° and over. The change will see the sealed positions extend through 25° flap.
Next Generation generic configuration changes include Krueger flap seal actuation to allow the device to be "left sealed for take-off and up out of the way [open] for approach and landing," says Delaney.
Flight spoiler deflection on the ground will also be increased from 30°, to match the maximum 60° of the ground spoilers. The operation of the flight spoilers in normal flight will be unchanged, he says. "But when it lands all the spoilers will come up to a nominal 60° throw for greater braking performance."
Another subtle change across all models will be a reduction in the camber, or "splay" of the main landing gear. "We've brought it in by just over 1°, which increases the uniformity of braking across all four brakes and will help tyre [wear] issues we've seen across the fleet. It's a maintenance benefit."
Also changing will be the engine idle-thrust delay time, which is being reduced from 5s to 2s. The change, effected through the CFM International CFM56-7B's full authority digital engine control, will "bring forward idle thrust off the aircraft faster", thereby helping shorten the landing roll.
The Krueger flap change is applicable to all models and will boost landing performance, as will the idle thrust delay change. The increased flight spoiler deflection, also applicable across all models, will improve both take-off and landing. The -800/900ER specific changes will boost take-off performance in the case of the leading-edge slat seal change, and landing performance in the case of the two-position tailskid.
Boeing expects the package to reduce the typical landing run of a winglet-equipped -800 by up to 100m, or increase the landing weight by as much as 4,730kg (10,400lb); while the take-off length could be reduced by more than 70m or the take-off weight performance boosted by more than 1,710kg.
The three-month flight-test effort is expected to run from late January through to late April, with the delivery of the first fully equipped aircraft due around mid-June 2006.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Blairgowrie,Scotland
Age: 75
Posts: 692
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cityjet to replace Bae 146s with RJ85s
Skyliner-aviation is reporting Cityjet to acquire 17 ex Mesaba RJ85s,with 6 more optioned,in 2006/7.
With Flybe E195s starting to arrive this year,there's going to be a lot of 146s to shift!
With Flybe E195s starting to arrive this year,there's going to be a lot of 146s to shift!
Last edited by Evileyes; 1st Feb 2006 at 17:28.
