Runway Lengths in the UK!!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tilewood
Southend 1605 metres
Regularly gets 757s in for maintainance, but I think I am right
when I say the largest aircraft in was a Lockheed Tristar.
Regularly gets 757s in for maintainance, but I think I am right
when I say the largest aircraft in was a Lockheed Tristar.
Was the largest aircraft out also the Tristar??!!!
Originally Posted by Lee@LPL
Even Ryanair's 738's are running some restricted flights closing off the back few rows of some flights.
Originally Posted by Lee@LPL
Thats shocking 1160 metre long runway!!! suprised you can fit ATP's and 146's on it
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BRISTOL
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having a short runway does not always mean you will have an unsuccessful and non expanding airport, take where I work at BRS, It's got a very short runway not to mention the infamous hump in the middle of it and an awful approach (if on RWY 09), the weather record is genrally crap infact the RAF used to use it for bad weather practise landings back in the day, rubbish road networks and no rail network, yet compared to other airports that handle similar pax figures like NCL and EMA, BRS handles more, ok you are limited to the length of flight you can do and what equipment you can use, but, nobody gave CO a hope in hell of doing well out of BRS to NYC but now the load factor is constantly around 85% and the route is generally popular with both tourists and business, look at the expansion in pax numbers and a/c movements in recent years, in just 5 years BRS has gone from handling 1.5 million to 5.2 million with nearly 6 million expected by the end of this year, so I think its fair to say that yes a short runway may restrict long haul growth but I dont think its a major excuse for an airport not expanding. As CO have proved US operators will use 757s to the UK for small runways and so too probably would AA or US, Theres already rumours of a 2nd NYC service and a possible BOS service from BRS.
You just need an excellent marketing team to land the deal, and I think going on previous years its fair to say BRS has one of the best in Europe!
In recent years they've landed the CO deal, got large expansion from BA,FCA,XLA,KM and new schedule carriers such as Air Southwest and Eastern, and also become EZY's busiest base outside of London with 25 destinations
With the new aircraft being produced nowadays such as the B787 it wont be long until airports such as LPL and BRS whos runways are short will start to see long haul services, I have been told by sources that FCA have pretty much promised a 787 to BRS and the number crunchers have said destinations such as MLE/CUN/SFB/MBJ will be no probs direct from BRS, FCA are already swapping from 2 based 321s to poss 3 x 757s by next summer so that they will already have boeing crews there and that they can start doing longish routes such as SSH/BJL(which are already operated by other carriers from BRS)asap.
So the future can look good for these airports as long as you have a marketing team that know what they're doing and airlines that listen and take a chance!
But then again from an objective point of view, is BRS an exception to the rule?
You just need an excellent marketing team to land the deal, and I think going on previous years its fair to say BRS has one of the best in Europe!
In recent years they've landed the CO deal, got large expansion from BA,FCA,XLA,KM and new schedule carriers such as Air Southwest and Eastern, and also become EZY's busiest base outside of London with 25 destinations
With the new aircraft being produced nowadays such as the B787 it wont be long until airports such as LPL and BRS whos runways are short will start to see long haul services, I have been told by sources that FCA have pretty much promised a 787 to BRS and the number crunchers have said destinations such as MLE/CUN/SFB/MBJ will be no probs direct from BRS, FCA are already swapping from 2 based 321s to poss 3 x 757s by next summer so that they will already have boeing crews there and that they can start doing longish routes such as SSH/BJL(which are already operated by other carriers from BRS)asap.
So the future can look good for these airports as long as you have a marketing team that know what they're doing and airlines that listen and take a chance!
But then again from an objective point of view, is BRS an exception to the rule?
Last edited by WATABENCH; 23rd Feb 2006 at 06:56.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: On the banks of the Crouch
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tilewood/AlphaWhiskeyRomeo
I believe some time after the Tristar landed at Southend, a sistership of Aer Turas did a series of touch and goes there.
Does that count?
Cheers
Southender
Does that count?
Cheers
Southender
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that Bristol is a huge success, thanks to a team who pushed and pushed, although the short runway will limit the routes available they have capitalised on what they can do.
Wish we could have the same success over the Estuary
Wish we could have the same success over the Estuary
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If your referring to Cardiff "Flower" you are having similar success. Correct if i'm wrong but you have established links with the east coast of america have'nt you? and i no for deffinate that your have ZOOM operating to canada from CWL!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 1,294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bristol and Cardiff enjoyed a similar level of traffic in the late Nineties, Bristol has subsequently driven forward at an astonishing pace and now outstrips Cardiff.
This coming year we will see growth and long may that continue but we still have some way to go until we catch up with Bristol
This coming year we will see growth and long may that continue but we still have some way to go until we catch up with Bristol
Brunel to Concorde
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virtute et Industria, et Sumorsaete Ealle
Posts: 2,283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lee@LPL
Just to put a bit of meat on flower’s remarks, in 1996 BRS had just under 1.4 million annual pax whilst CWL carried just under 1.1 million.
In 2005 BRS had 5.2 million whilst CWL had 1.8 million. In fact, CWL is one of the few significant regional airports to have actually gone backwards in recent years in terms of annual pax numbers, because in 2003 the airport had 1.9 million pax. (all figures from CAA stats).
However, as flower correctly says, things are now looking much brighter for CWL. The past few months have seen welcome percentage monthly increases in pax numbers, modest at present, but with the additional services planned for this year pax numbers should continue to grow but far more substantially.
To answer your specific question, CWL does have a weekly Zoom flight to Toronto for most of the year with a weekly Vancouver to be added this year. The airport also operates summer charters to Florida and these are being augmented this summer, as well as the arrival of weekly charter flights to Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
Where CWL has undoubtedly missed out is in the low-cost boom, at least relatively so. The airport’s main ‘no frills’ operator, bmibaby, for whatever reason, has never given the impression that it is so committed to CWL as, for example, easyJet is to BRS. It certainly hasn’t pressed on with expansion in the same way, although the airline may say it can only do what is economically viable.
As we are talking about runways, CWL’s is 340-odd metres longer than BRS’s 2011-metre runway, and at a lower level. Taken with a larger physical ability to accommodate up to B 747-size aircraft, it can be seen why CWL is used more by operators for long haul charters than its neighbour across the Severn.
As WATABENCH suggests, it is really up to an airport to play to its strengths and minimise its weaknesses. BRS has a larger catchment and is situated in a wealthy part of the country in a very economically-prosperous sub-region, whilst CWL has improving land communications with a larger airport infrastructure, and certainly better weather (as I am sure flower will confirm in her professional capacity).
It will probably always be that BRS has a larger critical mass, and therefore more flights and pax (unless it runs out of space), but CWL will have the ability to continue to grow without too much concern about where it will put everyone.
Of course all this is dependent on airport owners having the will (and means) to plough in the required cash and airport managements having the ability to develop their airports further, and in that sense runway lengths are only a part of the equation.
Just to put a bit of meat on flower’s remarks, in 1996 BRS had just under 1.4 million annual pax whilst CWL carried just under 1.1 million.
In 2005 BRS had 5.2 million whilst CWL had 1.8 million. In fact, CWL is one of the few significant regional airports to have actually gone backwards in recent years in terms of annual pax numbers, because in 2003 the airport had 1.9 million pax. (all figures from CAA stats).
However, as flower correctly says, things are now looking much brighter for CWL. The past few months have seen welcome percentage monthly increases in pax numbers, modest at present, but with the additional services planned for this year pax numbers should continue to grow but far more substantially.
To answer your specific question, CWL does have a weekly Zoom flight to Toronto for most of the year with a weekly Vancouver to be added this year. The airport also operates summer charters to Florida and these are being augmented this summer, as well as the arrival of weekly charter flights to Mexico and the Dominican Republic.
Where CWL has undoubtedly missed out is in the low-cost boom, at least relatively so. The airport’s main ‘no frills’ operator, bmibaby, for whatever reason, has never given the impression that it is so committed to CWL as, for example, easyJet is to BRS. It certainly hasn’t pressed on with expansion in the same way, although the airline may say it can only do what is economically viable.
As we are talking about runways, CWL’s is 340-odd metres longer than BRS’s 2011-metre runway, and at a lower level. Taken with a larger physical ability to accommodate up to B 747-size aircraft, it can be seen why CWL is used more by operators for long haul charters than its neighbour across the Severn.
As WATABENCH suggests, it is really up to an airport to play to its strengths and minimise its weaknesses. BRS has a larger catchment and is situated in a wealthy part of the country in a very economically-prosperous sub-region, whilst CWL has improving land communications with a larger airport infrastructure, and certainly better weather (as I am sure flower will confirm in her professional capacity).
It will probably always be that BRS has a larger critical mass, and therefore more flights and pax (unless it runs out of space), but CWL will have the ability to continue to grow without too much concern about where it will put everyone.
Of course all this is dependent on airport owners having the will (and means) to plough in the required cash and airport managements having the ability to develop their airports further, and in that sense runway lengths are only a part of the equation.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runway due for major reconstruction in around November and it is thought the extension will be carried out at that time. Extension will be at 27 end and in the form of a full width starter strip, the piano keyes will remain in their present position for landing on 27. (Parallel taxiway will be extended as well)
Last edited by lplsprog; 24th Feb 2006 at 15:18. Reason: spelling
