ABERDEEN

[wesleyscott]

interesting to see the Thomas Cook flight going to TFS via MAN for a refuelling stop. I thought the runway extension put an end to this caper

[Facelookbovvered]

Using what equipment?, it can't be more than 5:15 to TFS from ABZ

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

Prob 757-200, pretty I've said before a fully loaded 757 at max take off weight can't use Abz runway

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

Infact a 757 at its max take off weight and at sea level needs 2900m of runway, so almost 1000m more than Aberdeen has to offer, so much for the pretty pointless runway extension, hasn't changed a thing,

I'd be happier driving to Glasgow where flts are heaps cheaper than get a charter flt out of Aberdeen that has to stop anywhere en route.

[wesleyscott]

i will find out what it was, my mate was on it and said it was a foreign plane and not even thomas cook but using their flight number...he wasnt happy at the extra hour it took

[VickersVicount]

Id be surprised if a medium haul charter flight on a 757 with just pax and baggage (ie no cargo) was anywhere near MTOW and should have easily coped out of ABZ. They operate to eastern Med and Turkey without problem

[liam4393]

If it was todays flight it was Orbest of Portugal A320 CS-TRK, or if on Friday it was Travel Service B738 OM-TVA

[goldeneye]

I didn't think TCX were flying from ABZ this year, I thought the Thomas Cook Holidays offering was on 3rd party airlines like Orbest etc.

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

Dunno how much fuel these airlines are taking to operate the Abz charter flt routes but for the 737-800 if they operate that at max take off weight they need 2400m of runway and 2090m for the a320, so unfortunately anything near max takeoff weight Aberdeen just doesn't cope, need to get their fingers out and get the runway up to a decent length, even extending it to 2500 m would be hugely beneficial as potential long haul would then be able to operate like thy do at both Glasgow and Edinburgh who's runways are just over 2500m

[CaptainDoony]

The Orbest A320 operating on behalf of TCX did indeed go ABZ-TFS direct.

TOM also operate ABZ-TFS direct with their 738's however I believe they are equipped with slightly more powerful engines than the Travel Service ones (27k v 26/24k) which seems to necessitate the fuel stop at MAN. A320's also have nice and powerful engines as well.

It's unlikely that an aircraft will be at its MTOW operating (trying) out of ABZ. It may be full of passengers but not at its maximum take off weight.

AnywhereButAbz - ABZ could have a 5000m runway but it would be no guarantee of long haul because the demand (or infrastructure besides the runway) just isn't there right now to support regular scheduled widebody ops.

[Richard Taylor]

I can't remember now - there are long-term plans to extend the runway further (I think at both ends) but is the extension we have now the one that they had originally proposed? I seem to think they cut the original proposal back.

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

I think the extension that was recently completed is as long as the runways going to get

[CaptainDoony]

The masterplan diagrams at the end show runway extensions of approx 100m to be added on in the future but we're talking around the year 2040 before that happens.

[letMfly]

The existing planning permission was for a 300m extension to the North end of the main runway, but only 140m was built, I believe because of financial considerations: a longer extension would have required massive, expensive earthworks to surrounding areas.
The master plan does indicate a southerly extension which may or may not be built in the future. An earlier White Paper stated that this would also be around 300m, but the new master plan has watered this down to say that it depends on future aircraft requirements and is dependant on purchasing extra land from the cricket club.
Unfortunately AIA cannot afford a "build it and they will come" policy!

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

So I guess ac will have to continue to make fuel stops en route to their destination, so pretty much the 10 mil spent was a waste of money cos no new routes have been developed apart from Frankfurt and London city which didn't require the extension,

10 mil would of been better off enlarging the terminal to cater for the extra 2-3 million extra passengers over the next 10-15 yrs. don't even think the airport can cope right now to be honest.

Even the airport said last week when 4 flts arrived at the same time that 600 passengers all at once was too much, if I didn't know better we were still livin in the 70's, pretty damn pathetic

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

I am also assuming but correct me anyone if I am wrong but if Abz continues to grow like it has over last 2-3 yrs then they will hit 5.5 million passengers by 2023 and not 2040 like in the master plan,

I think the next 2 yrs could be very interesting, especially with Thompson, and I know they cancelled their Tenerife and subbed it out, but by them and tcx substantially increasing charter flights to more destinations and with greater frequencies Abz could be pushed to the limit.

[c2lass]

AIA is an absolute joke. We arrived at airport very early (9.15) for 12.10 flight to FRA on Sat. Went for some food and joined the very large FRA queue at 10.25. Queued for 1 hour 5 mins to drop bags off. Then queued another 35 mins at Security. Boarded plane at 12.05 and flight was delayed by 30 mins waiting for pax who were behind us.

Why is it we are literally at check in desk 2 minutes yet it took over an hour to deal with all pax in front of us. I feel very sorry for any elderly or infirm pax who have to remain standing that length of time.

[wesleyscott]

thanks for all your responses, i believe it was indeed the Travel Service flight that was indirect.

[ANYWHERE BUT ABZ]

Even on a Saturday, I know flying mid week down to London all the time is a nightmare

[topoverhaul]

The runway extension achieved absolutely nothing for the £10m, they even had to pay a consultant firm afterwards to write a report on how worthwhile it was.
Of course the current operators when asked had no interest in an extension, they were already operating there! They needed to ask the operators who are not there what it would take for them to think of operating and it would have started with another 300m to allow a reasonable RTOW against the terrain ahead on 16.
Some covered access from the terminal would not have gone amiss.