ISLE OF MAN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Middle of Nowhere!
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EASYJET would never come to the IOM, as there just isnt the pax figures to fill a 319 with 156 seats on it 3 times aday to LGW.
We operate to JER from LTN and LPL and the rwy at JER is roughly the sam length, so its nothing to do with the Runway.
Wish they would base an 319 in IOM would save me having to commute
We operate to JER from LTN and LPL and the rwy at JER is roughly the sam length, so its nothing to do with the Runway.
Wish they would base an 319 in IOM would save me having to commute
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Isle Of Man
Age: 40
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
all the above only gos to prove the runway extension is a waste of £40m. Nice to have but £4m a year into encouraging new operators or new routes would be much better use of dosh
Problem is you can scare Tynwald into paying £40m with stories of shorter runways and losing useable length.
You cant scare them to pay £4m a year for new business, that'll get spent on hospitals, nurses and more old bill with speed cameras. 
Problem is you can scare Tynwald into paying £40m with stories of shorter runways and losing useable length. You cant scare them to pay £4m a year for new business, that'll get spent on hospitals, nurses and more old bill with speed cameras.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,782
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IOM and EZY
I would suggest that EZY would come to the IOM. However, I think that they will be watching carefully how the winter goes from Jersey and indeed the summer.
A daily frequency to Liverpool and Luton/Gatwick would make sense.
As for a suggestion that a runway extention would kill off smaller operators, I think that airlines like Manx2 with a small aircraft can offer high frequency and hence attract lucrative business travellers, whereas the likes of EZY and Ryanair would not be able to serve the business traveller in a profitable manner.
My view for the IOM airport is that they need to very careful not to be over reliant on Flybe in the future. If Flybe's aspirations come to fruition they will see an end to Euromanx, and keep Manx2 off its routes. This result would be disasterous, ideally there would be a low cost operator in to provide competition on key routes and avoid a situation where Flybe calls the shots. This is going on at airports like Exeter and Norwich and indeed Southampton (I realise good growth has been seen at these) and the outcome often as in the case of Exeter is that the airport cant get other carriers in as Flybe is in too strong a position. EZY wanted GVA EXeter but this never happened, fees were too high.Why?
A daily frequency to Liverpool and Luton/Gatwick would make sense.
As for a suggestion that a runway extention would kill off smaller operators, I think that airlines like Manx2 with a small aircraft can offer high frequency and hence attract lucrative business travellers, whereas the likes of EZY and Ryanair would not be able to serve the business traveller in a profitable manner.
My view for the IOM airport is that they need to very careful not to be over reliant on Flybe in the future. If Flybe's aspirations come to fruition they will see an end to Euromanx, and keep Manx2 off its routes. This result would be disasterous, ideally there would be a low cost operator in to provide competition on key routes and avoid a situation where Flybe calls the shots. This is going on at airports like Exeter and Norwich and indeed Southampton (I realise good growth has been seen at these) and the outcome often as in the case of Exeter is that the airport cant get other carriers in as Flybe is in too strong a position. EZY wanted GVA EXeter but this never happened, fees were too high.Why?
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 471
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EI-BUD
I think that that argument could be used for alot of LCC bases. Flybe have been very sensible and picked bases like NWI, EXT and SOU which either cannot support the larger aircraft that U2/FR operate, or especially in the case of SOU where there is no real expansion for the airport to cope with multiple 737/319 aircraft on the ramp.
Whilst these airports may be reliant on Flybe, this was exactly the same situation a few years back where STN was reliant on FR and LTN/LPL/BRS were reliant of U2. Things are changing but given the current economic climate the likes of FR and U2 will not stray into areas that represent meagre possibilities for profit but I would agree that the recent influx of carriers to Belfast represents an interesting market to view over the coming months.
I think that that argument could be used for alot of LCC bases. Flybe have been very sensible and picked bases like NWI, EXT and SOU which either cannot support the larger aircraft that U2/FR operate, or especially in the case of SOU where there is no real expansion for the airport to cope with multiple 737/319 aircraft on the ramp.
Whilst these airports may be reliant on Flybe, this was exactly the same situation a few years back where STN was reliant on FR and LTN/LPL/BRS were reliant of U2. Things are changing but given the current economic climate the likes of FR and U2 will not stray into areas that represent meagre possibilities for profit but I would agree that the recent influx of carriers to Belfast represents an interesting market to view over the coming months.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Middle of Nowhere!
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One thing you are all forgetting, Jersey has a fantastic tourism industry, plus nice weather. the island population is 105k and has a much larger finance industry.
And still dont think easy or FR would be interested in the IOM, too many destinations are available.
Even when Euromanx offered IOM - CDG they could never fill it, plus the seats were cheap enough too.
And still dont think easy or FR would be interested in the IOM, too many destinations are available.
Even when Euromanx offered IOM - CDG they could never fill it, plus the seats were cheap enough too.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, the course got to me.
Of course it will be load bearing...what's the point of providing overrun facility to enable safe stopping distance for the aircraft needing it to then fall into a pot hole? The pontoon will be most likely concrete, load bearing and with the approach lights for 26 embedded into the first few hundred feet. I/We/They will no doubt find the improved access and taxiway more useful.
Unfortunately, even a once daily EZY rotation to LGW would probably kill off the Flybe routes, and even then it wouldn't lead to a twice daily service year round, nor would the prices be any lower.
Careful what we all wish for, eh?
Of course it will be load bearing...what's the point of providing overrun facility to enable safe stopping distance for the aircraft needing it to then fall into a pot hole? The pontoon will be most likely concrete, load bearing and with the approach lights for 26 embedded into the first few hundred feet. I/We/They will no doubt find the improved access and taxiway more useful.
Unfortunately, even a once daily EZY rotation to LGW would probably kill off the Flybe routes, and even then it wouldn't lead to a twice daily service year round, nor would the prices be any lower.
Careful what we all wish for, eh?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1.1 A runway safety area is defined as surface surrounding the runway prepared or suitable for reducing the risk of damage to airplanes in the event of an undershoot, overshoot, or excursion from
the runway.
ICAO definition of RESA
Because RESA only has to be suitable surface but your quite right what's the point of having a pontoon with a big hole. Not good!
Sorry I didn't make my self clear AFO. I was just wondering if the pontoon would have "normal" a/c operations but you answered in your post
Just don't seem the need for the pontoon! It should be extended other way.
Funny the contracting company has been fined in the uk for price fixing!
the runway.
ICAO definition of RESA
Of course it will be load bearing...what's the point of providing overrun facility to enable safe stopping distance for the aircraft needing it to then fall into a pot hole?
Sorry I didn't make my self clear AFO. I was just wondering if the pontoon would have "normal" a/c operations but you answered in your post
Just don't seem the need for the pontoon! It should be extended other way.
Funny the contracting company has been fined in the uk for price fixing!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: up North
Posts: 661
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One confusing point with that impression is that they've moved the threshold - but that is wrong. The existing displaced threshold stays exactly where it is - the extension is required just to meet RESA distance.
As someone said before the only advantage will be a greater TORA on 26.
As someone said before the only advantage will be a greater TORA on 26.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/airport/p...cationsub1.pdf
Half way down document suggests runway length IS to be extended.
Me thinks future Regional types will be the orange kind!
Half way down document suggests runway length IS to be extended.
It is therefore proposed to not only build a circa 200 metre promontory out to sea, which will resolve the
RESA problem, but also to extend the current runway surface onto the new promontory, in order to gain a
useful increase in runway length. This modest increase in length will help to ensure that future regional aircraft types can be accepted without payload restrictions.
RESA problem, but also to extend the current runway surface onto the new promontory, in order to gain a
useful increase in runway length. This modest increase in length will help to ensure that future regional aircraft types can be accepted without payload restrictions.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North of the Border
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, as far as i'm aware Eastern watching LCY route with the current circumstances.
If what everyone is predicting, i won't be surprised when you'll see Easterns colours doing IOM-LCY as soon as it is dropped. Knowing the q400 isn't within LCY limits. Just the sort of route they'd snap up.
Pax will love Easterns service but price i don't think so unless its booked in advance.
If what everyone is predicting, i won't be surprised when you'll see Easterns colours doing IOM-LCY as soon as it is dropped. Knowing the q400 isn't within LCY limits. Just the sort of route they'd snap up.
Pax will love Easterns service but price i don't think so unless its booked in advance.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ask crewing
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowing the q400 isn't within LCY limits. Just the sort of route they'd snap up.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Middle of Nowhere!
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
flybe carried out extensive research about 4-6 yrs ago, and they discoved it just wasnt feasable, they found it a struggle to fill 37 seats never mind a 78 seater, not only that, why have 2 London routes served by same airline?
flybe have never ever operated a sheduled Q400 into LCY, how do i know? Because I worked for them!
flybe have never ever operated a sheduled Q400 into LCY, how do i know? Because I worked for them!