Cityjet
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Oban, Scotland
Posts: 1,845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It occurs to me that during the summer there are fewer business meetings, conferences and exhibitions, and possibly also fewer short-break holidays, as we're all going further afield and for longer. There be a greater return from these summer charters.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any truth in the rumour that Cityjet is in trouble as the Avros are at risk getting banned in 2017 from LCY because of more stringent noise restrictions? I understand that there have been restrictions in the past configurationwise already because the little beasts are quite noisy coming in or taking off with lots of flaps. Landings appears to be an issue because of the combinaiton of glide path and flap configuration, resulting in the engines have to operate with a lot of thrust. Or is this all hust an urban legend?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's unfortunate for them; but they don't really appear to serve a purpose as a scheduled airline, and the smaller they get the harder it becomes for them to market what they do operate :-( I hope charters goes well for them and they don't go the same way as VLM.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just came across a publication from the Borough of Newham and LCACC.ORG, advising the RJ100 must cease operating from LCY from the 31st of March 2017. Not sure if this will also apply for the RJ85, but can't imagine the noise footprint is that different for the 2 aircraft types.
Source: lcacc.org/wp-content/.../LCACC-Airport-Monitoring-Report-Sept-Dec-2016.docx
Source: lcacc.org/wp-content/.../LCACC-Airport-Monitoring-Report-Sept-Dec-2016.docx
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting thanks. Looks as if Cityjet is in trouble then as the planning permission states:
I think this is better discussed in the LCY thread, so I will move the topic there.
From 31 March 2017, no AVRO RJ100 type aircraft (or any variant thereof) shall operate from the Airport at any time unless it has been demonstrated to and approved in writing by the local planning authority that noise from such Aircraft does not exceed the maximum noise levels specified in any approved scheme under Condition 18.
According to certification data that I have the RJ100 figures are F/O 86.1dB, App 97.6, S/Line 88.1 and those for the RJ85 are 84.3, 97.3 & 88.4. One would assume that if the RJ85 was included in the ban it would be specifically listed so I doubt that the RJ85 is affected by this ban.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swiss. But the Avros will be gone in a couple of months and Swiss has begun replacing them with E190s opb Helvetic and will bring their owns CS100s to LCY sooner than later.
Other than that, it is nowadays only ACMI-operators like Cello, Jota and WDL that are the first point of call for scheduled airlines that need ad hoc capacity to replacetheir own metal. All the others airlines have long replaced the Avros with Embraers (BACF, Lufthansa, Alitalia/Azzura).
Other than that, it is nowadays only ACMI-operators like Cello, Jota and WDL that are the first point of call for scheduled airlines that need ad hoc capacity to replacetheir own metal. All the others airlines have long replaced the Avros with Embraers (BACF, Lufthansa, Alitalia/Azzura).
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Essex
Posts: 1,238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely Cityjet have this situation covered if their AvroRJs are covered by the directive. Otherwise there is some really deep doo-doo for the company to get through (and something slightly less deep but significant for LCY).
PS. Forgive my ignorance - what is Condition 18?
PS. Forgive my ignorance - what is Condition 18?
Living next to LCY, and watching the departures daily, I can tell you that the RJ85 is by no means the noisiest aircraft out of the airport. In fact it is one of the quietest. There is another prevalent type which is far more prominent, and in fact is noticeably different in its operation between its different operators - one in particular seems to gun the throttle more than others.
I wonder also how any local authority can just change the conditions under which an aircraft operator has run for many years, and at two months notice. Surely this is CAA territory.
I wonder also how any local authority can just change the conditions under which an aircraft operator has run for many years, and at two months notice. Surely this is CAA territory.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think the noise issue is so with much take-offs as these predominantly affect a smaller area in the immediate vicinity of the airport as the aircraft quickly reach higher altitudes and can also execute noise abatement procedures on departure routes. Approaches are different as these expose larger areas to noise from lower altitudes. My understanding is that the Avros have to operate with a lot of thrust on approach as a result of the required flap settings and the steep approach and are therefore the main concern. To be honest, I doubt that the planning permission got the db-figures wrong.
It is one of the conditions subject to which the planning permission for the LCY expansion was granted in 2016 by the DoT. The Avros are condititon 15, condition 18 stipulates an "Aircraft Noise Categorisation Scheme".
PS. Forgive my ignorance - what is Condition 18?
With credit to "Flightrider" on the Dublin thread
So EI have updated slots for many of their Dublin-Gatwick and Gatwick-Knock services this summer to show the aircraft type as an SSJ100 Superjet between late May and mid September. Looking increasingly likely that they will be joining Brussels Airlines as a wet-lease customer for CityJet's services?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on the noise issue and the RJ100. See this link and go to paragraph 3.5.4
https://www.londoncityairport.com/co...s%20LowRes.pdf
If I'm reading this correctly, it does seem to be only the RJ100 variant that is affected. It specifically says that only Swiss are still operating the RJ100. The report specifically lists the movement by type and shows all categories as separate type, ie 146/100 - 200 - 300 as three different and RJ types as three different.
There is no mention of noise breaches by the RJ85 (used by Cityjet and others) in the report. There is also a breach by the Dornier328 jet.
I am a mere observer so welcome other opinions if you think I've misinterpreted this report.
https://www.londoncityairport.com/co...s%20LowRes.pdf
If I'm reading this correctly, it does seem to be only the RJ100 variant that is affected. It specifically says that only Swiss are still operating the RJ100. The report specifically lists the movement by type and shows all categories as separate type, ie 146/100 - 200 - 300 as three different and RJ types as three different.
There is no mention of noise breaches by the RJ85 (used by Cityjet and others) in the report. There is also a breach by the Dornier328 jet.
I am a mere observer so welcome other opinions if you think I've misinterpreted this report.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to my comment above, that report also anticipates that Swiss will have replaced their RJ100s with the C-series by the end of 2016. But that deadline passed....
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting stuff. I have not gone through the report, but my feeling is that the issue is not aircraft related, but airline related as it appears that the performance of all flights is monitored and an airline is notified if it has exceeded limits over a certain period of time. So it appears that there is no type per se too noisy or on the safe side.
Btw, Swiss will replace the RJ100 with Embraer 190s also on the GVA route.
On a side note: Which airline used the ATR72 in 2015 on 134 flights?
Btw, Swiss will replace the RJ100 with Embraer 190s also on the GVA route.
On a side note: Which airline used the ATR72 in 2015 on 134 flights?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK
Age: 64
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that as the RJ100 is larger / heavier, it is climbing less quickly than other variants (such as Cityjet's RJ85) and that's why it is (just) going above the noise limit?