LONDON CITY - 2
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South East
Age: 56
Posts: 614
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the ATCO really meant to say 'KLM.... you are advised that the current RVR is 600m which is below the absolute minima for a (name) approach to runway (number). What are you intentions?'
If the pilot then asked what that minima was, the ATCo would say that ATC are unable to supply this information to pilots and that they should refer to his Mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima.
As per Amendment 69 Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 7 and 8.
I deserve that!
If the pilot then asked what that minima was, the ATCo would say that ATC are unable to supply this information to pilots and that they should refer to his Mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima.
As per Amendment 69 Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 7 and 8.
I deserve that!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Underneath downwind R for 09 at EGLC
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Windy day at LCY
Listening in to Thames this morning with the wind gusting at 40kts I noticed that quite a few a/c were going around due to the crosswind and windshear, it seemed however that Swiss Air pilots were aborting there approaches more than any other airline , this may have just been coincidence and i realise that the rj100's are just about the biggest a/c that goes into city but i wonder if Swiss air has different minimums in cross winds to some other airlines as, the Ba rj's seemed generally to land ok and allmost all of the VLM Fokkers 50's ??! One way or another LCY is definately a challanging approach......
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I note in the IOM thread that there are rumours spreading about a new LCY-IOM route by BA Cityflyer served with their RJ100s. Dive for cover, Euromanx and VLM.....
Would be a very interesting development - they'll hand over IOM-ÖLGW to flyBE who will probably replace the BAe 146-100 with a Q400, while at the same time BA Cityflyer will deploy a RJ100 on a new route from LCY, making them the only jet operator from the IOM. If they schedule the flights properly, even some limited connections through LCY will be possible to FRA, CDG, MAD and some of the other, yet-to-be-announced BA Cityflyer destinations. We shall see.
Would be a very interesting development - they'll hand over IOM-ÖLGW to flyBE who will probably replace the BAe 146-100 with a Q400, while at the same time BA Cityflyer will deploy a RJ100 on a new route from LCY, making them the only jet operator from the IOM. If they schedule the flights properly, even some limited connections through LCY will be possible to FRA, CDG, MAD and some of the other, yet-to-be-announced BA Cityflyer destinations. We shall see.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening in to Thames this morning with the wind gusting at 40kts I noticed that quite a few a/c were going around due to the crosswind and windshear, it seemed however that Swiss Air pilots were aborting there approaches more than any other airline , this may have just been coincidence and i realise that the rj100's are just about the biggest a/c that goes into city but i wonder if Swiss air has different minimums in cross winds to some other airlines as, the Ba rj's seemed generally to land ok and allmost all of the VLM Fokkers 50's ??! One way or another LCY is definately a challanging approach......
Another problem was a loose concrete slab on the runway opposite Charlie which meant that the runway had to close earlier this morning. As mentioned, this didnt cause too much interuptions to airlines. As mentioned, there were gusts of up to 46kts at times today, which is enough to make me wonder (if I was in the particular situation) the maybe I should think about heading elsewhere!
46kts is rough to say the least!!
On another note, has anyone heard about the handover of the airport to an american company?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike
As said, SWR weren't the only ones. BRT were going around too!
Losing the runway (careless!!) was unfortunate, and meant a 20 min period of nothing happening. The wind wa spretty much 28-23 max 43 til 1000hrs at least.
Oh, and the absolute minima for 28 is 700m and 10 is 800m.
As said, SWR weren't the only ones. BRT were going around too!
Losing the runway (careless!!) was unfortunate, and meant a 20 min period of nothing happening. The wind wa spretty much 28-23 max 43 til 1000hrs at least.
Oh, and the absolute minima for 28 is 700m and 10 is 800m.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RAFAT:
Read that:
If the plans come true, the situation will most likely be:
IOM-LGW flyBE with Q400
IOM-LCY BA Cityflyer with RJ100, VLM with Fokker 50 and Euromanx with DHC8-300 (if they survive...)
IOM-STN Manx2 with Jetstream (if they continue to fly to STN).
So you have five operators on the LON market, but only one with jet equipment and a useful frequent flyer programme. I expect that BA will also offer limited connections through LCY, something flybe, manx2 and Euromanx don't do (VLM has a limited number of connections as well).
Interesting, however, the remark about flyBE and the Q400 @ LCY. I wonder why Flybe is unable to do what Lufthansa/Augsburg has already done, SAS currently does and Luxair will do sooner than later. What airmanship do they have that flyBE lacks ?
Read that:
....they'll hand over IOM-LGW to flyBE who will probably replace the BAe 146-100 with a Q400 on that route..
IOM-LGW flyBE with Q400
IOM-LCY BA Cityflyer with RJ100, VLM with Fokker 50 and Euromanx with DHC8-300 (if they survive...)
IOM-STN Manx2 with Jetstream (if they continue to fly to STN).
So you have five operators on the LON market, but only one with jet equipment and a useful frequent flyer programme. I expect that BA will also offer limited connections through LCY, something flybe, manx2 and Euromanx don't do (VLM has a limited number of connections as well).
Interesting, however, the remark about flyBE and the Q400 @ LCY. I wonder why Flybe is unable to do what Lufthansa/Augsburg has already done, SAS currently does and Luxair will do sooner than later. What airmanship do they have that flyBE lacks ?
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The Great Yonder
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manx2 have totally withdrawn the STN route now. BA into LCY will be overkill, however they'd definitely survive, I think we'd see VLM pull off the route sharpish and then just EuroManx and Cityflyer going head to head.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA on LCYIOM
I would be amazed if BA started LCYIOM. Access to LCY is limited and wouldnt this route be competing for some of the LGWIOM business?????
Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.
However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???
Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???
Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.
However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???
Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be amazed if BA started LCYIOM. Access to LCY is limited and wouldnt this route be competing for some of the LGWIOM business?????
Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.
However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???
Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???
Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.
However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???
Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???
I am led to believe that IOM-LON is, as far as high yield traffic is concerned, a market that can sustain a full service carrier and probably also some sort of smaller LCC operation.
IOM-LGW will be operated by Flybe from April. Despite having a small stake in Flybe, I doubt that BA will avoid competition with Flybe. LGW used to be the island's lifeline as it also offered some connections after the end of the LHR route. With flybe's arrival, it will become nothing more than a low cost route as flybe does not offer connections, interlining etc.
No airline will waste LHR slots for an IOM service.
So the only option for a full service airline is LCY. While it is true that this route already has two operators, those two are no rserious competition if BA will put a jet on the route, offers a FFP and some frills. It is not exactly BA competing against Air France and KLM, but BA against Euromanx and VLM....
Join Date: May 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there really sufficient traffic for more IOM-LCY?? The airport web site shows surveys for Vienna, Rome, Exeter, Barcelona & Helsinki. Would Barcelona be a BA choice given they have Madrid already? I also hear mutterings about Belfast. This is something Flybe did from LCY when they were British European. Would someone (not Flybe I suspect) come back onto that I wonder? The Exeter survey maybe just that LCY are the management team at Exeter now.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure BCN is set to begin. There were rumours about a BCN a while ago and even rumoured that Iberia were to lease a BAe 146 from WDL to serve the route. Now that BA Cityflyer needs to find work for their RJ100s, BCN, VIE and HEL are top candidates for new routes, alongside GLA, BHD and IOM on the domestic market. Remember that BA cityflyer needs to employ ten RJ100s....
As for IOM, I think it is not a question of more services, but whether BA Cityflyer would be able to drive the incumbents out of the market.
As for IOM, I think it is not a question of more services, but whether BA Cityflyer would be able to drive the incumbents out of the market.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting round-up by LCY's largest carrier VLM Airlines about their year 2006:
advertising
Reading the release carefully, it becomes obvious that the JER, IOM and LPL do not do well, the routes to MAN and Belgium are doing okay and the routes to Luxemburg and particularly to the Netherlands are doing great.
advertising
Reading the release carefully, it becomes obvious that the JER, IOM and LPL do not do well, the routes to MAN and Belgium are doing okay and the routes to Luxemburg and particularly to the Netherlands are doing great.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although a BA start looks likely.
Thread Starter
On a separate matter, following the notes above to the VLM website I find they now say 45 minutes check-in at "peak times" at LCY. Remember, all concerned, that it was the old 10 minute check-in at LCY that used to be a unique selling point. Don't feel you somehow don't have to bother organising to handle this nowadays. Sure there is now one extra security point now (3 instead of 2) but as business is up at least 50% over a few years ago that was needed just to handle the extra load.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA & LCY airport
Virgin Blue , I agree with what you have said about there being a demand for a full service carrier on the IOM London route, and you mentioned that interlining was not available with flybe through LGW. However, although this may be true, I dont believe many people would interline at LCY ?? Do you think they would?
Like many UK airports, when BA Connect disappears they will be left with little or no full service carriers.
I hold the view that BA management will have had enough of losing money and hence will avoid going in head to head with other carrriers on future routes. I do agree that Many say GLA is a possibility. It would seem logical. However, I really couldnt see BA cityflyer doing a BHD service. BA lost money for year on the BFS LHR route and cut it weeks after 9/11. BHD LCY is a different route but I just couldnt see it happening.
Under Willie Walsh we see that such careful consideration is given to new routes. The new Calgary LHR route was opened after months of planning. The management will be extremely prudent as to the markets that they choose . With the pressures that exist on short haul routes and yield especially in the London market,BA will in my view open new markets not currently served by other carriers from LCY and they will have a good handle on the markets on there ex LHR routes.
I also must say that I realise BA and Flybe are quite separate airlines, but as BA has a vested interest in the short term at least ( being 15% shareholder), they will not go into conflict on similar rotues, ie a BA IOM LCY route would be poaching LGW IOM passengers from Flybe as well as the existing two competitiors on the the IOM LCY route.
As regards an IOM LHR route , its fate was sealed when it was closed , I cant see it coming back. And to be honest a daily flight would only be token , Bmi for eg hasnt exactly reinvigorated LHRINV since it was reintroduced, LGW continued to be the most popular route.
What are anyone elses views?
Like many UK airports, when BA Connect disappears they will be left with little or no full service carriers.
I hold the view that BA management will have had enough of losing money and hence will avoid going in head to head with other carrriers on future routes. I do agree that Many say GLA is a possibility. It would seem logical. However, I really couldnt see BA cityflyer doing a BHD service. BA lost money for year on the BFS LHR route and cut it weeks after 9/11. BHD LCY is a different route but I just couldnt see it happening.
Under Willie Walsh we see that such careful consideration is given to new routes. The new Calgary LHR route was opened after months of planning. The management will be extremely prudent as to the markets that they choose . With the pressures that exist on short haul routes and yield especially in the London market,BA will in my view open new markets not currently served by other carriers from LCY and they will have a good handle on the markets on there ex LHR routes.
I also must say that I realise BA and Flybe are quite separate airlines, but as BA has a vested interest in the short term at least ( being 15% shareholder), they will not go into conflict on similar rotues, ie a BA IOM LCY route would be poaching LGW IOM passengers from Flybe as well as the existing two competitiors on the the IOM LCY route.
As regards an IOM LHR route , its fate was sealed when it was closed , I cant see it coming back. And to be honest a daily flight would only be token , Bmi for eg hasnt exactly reinvigorated LHRINV since it was reintroduced, LGW continued to be the most popular route.
What are anyone elses views?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Islands
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gci & Jer
What about BA Cityflyer offering routes to the Channel Islands. If the Isle of Man can support 2 Airlines on the route the surely the even bigger Financial Jurisdictions of Guernsey and Jersey could support a decent service, especially seeing as BA pulled out of Guernsey a few years ago, would be nice to see them back. VLM don't really offer a decent service for Jersey passengers, whereas a twice daily LCY-GCI/JER would be great, especially for connecting flights with the new BA Cityflyer!!
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA Cityflyer
My suggestion is that limited connections will be possible through LCY once BA Cityflyer has built up a network using 10 Avro RJ100s. It is the same VLM currently does - you can connect from MAN, LPL, IOM and JER to AMS, RTM, BRU, ANR and LUX. The advantage of connecting at LCY compared to LHR is pretty obvious. What BA Cityflyer would, of ocurse, need is a number of domestic destinations in addition to their portfolio of destinations on the continent. Particularly BHD and IOM would make sense since these markets are not served from LHR and currently have to rely on connections through MAN/LGW, routes that will disappear once flyBE has taken over BA Connect.
VLM Airlines
My above link has been removed as it referred to the airlines' website. A quick summary of the numbers I was mentioning:
LCY-AMS 103.846 (+186%). This service commenced in April 2005.
LCY-RTM 136.343 (+21%)
LCY-GRQ (via AMS): No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2006. In December the first sold-out flight was achieved.
LCY-LUX 55.168 (+6%)
LCY-MAN 113.499 (+0.5%)
LCY-LPL 47.779 (-32,5%)
LCY-IOM: No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2005.
LCY-JER: No numbers given.
My suggestion is that limited connections will be possible through LCY once BA Cityflyer has built up a network using 10 Avro RJ100s. It is the same VLM currently does - you can connect from MAN, LPL, IOM and JER to AMS, RTM, BRU, ANR and LUX. The advantage of connecting at LCY compared to LHR is pretty obvious. What BA Cityflyer would, of ocurse, need is a number of domestic destinations in addition to their portfolio of destinations on the continent. Particularly BHD and IOM would make sense since these markets are not served from LHR and currently have to rely on connections through MAN/LGW, routes that will disappear once flyBE has taken over BA Connect.
VLM Airlines
My above link has been removed as it referred to the airlines' website. A quick summary of the numbers I was mentioning:
LCY-AMS 103.846 (+186%). This service commenced in April 2005.
LCY-RTM 136.343 (+21%)
LCY-GRQ (via AMS): No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2006. In December the first sold-out flight was achieved.
LCY-LUX 55.168 (+6%)
LCY-MAN 113.499 (+0.5%)
LCY-LPL 47.779 (-32,5%)
LCY-IOM: No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2005.
LCY-JER: No numbers given.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Islands
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once Flybe has rationalised its fleet Guernsey will be left with two Q400's nightstopping as the E195 cannot land on the island yet. If BA Cityflyer decided to operate a GCI-LCY route, it may prove popular as BA would be the only Jet Operator offering flights to the island, even though cityflyer would only have limited connections, it would still prove popular as a transit destination as you can't connect with any flights on the GCI-LGW route even though there are two airlines operating on it. Im sure BA could quite easily fill an RJ100 twice a day with London and Connecting passengers twice a day!!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, however, the remark about flyBE and the Q400 @ LCY. I wonder why Flybe is unable to do what Lufthansa/Augsburg has already done, SAS currently does and Luxair will do sooner than later. What airmanship do they have that flyBE lacks ?
The hand-flown raw data method that our SOPs dictated we used for the approach was completely unnecessary, and didn't do anything to help boost the confidence of many. When it came to taking the 400 in there, the Bombardier LCY DHC8-400 approach video was spread around to nicely alarm everybody, (near tailscrape!) and then the actual trials were done by the wrong people, (sim & desk drivers) they scared themselves silly and that was an end to it. The 146 fleet probably wondered what the hell all the fuss was about.However, I suppose one must consider the opposite point of view that doing the trials with people that didn't actually fly the aircraft very often was exactly the right thing to do, given that the wider DHC8 workforce (especially now) are relatively low in experience.