LONDON CITY - 2
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another E-jet operator into LCY...
Perhaps Air One/Alitalia? Presumably they won't want to continue leasing the RJ70 forever and if their own E170s have the capability for LCY (although I guess retrofit would be required?) then surely this is the logical next step?
Perhaps Air One/Alitalia? Presumably they won't want to continue leasing the RJ70 forever and if their own E170s have the capability for LCY (although I guess retrofit would be required?) then surely this is the logical next step?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Barton Upon Humber
Posts: 1,984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There were jokes recently about Oxford Kidlington rebranding itself as a London airport and opening for commercial operations, and FlyBaboo are the first carrier I have noticed taking them up.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CityJet is currently waiting to see how BACF get's on with the E-Jet and will then make up it's mind. Would make sense though, the regional divisions within the AF group already operates the E-Jet (both KLC and RAE) so I would suspect they could get their hands on some. (Regional Airlines, part of the AF group, currently has 6 x E170's and 9 x E190's) A quick startup would seem difficult with only a dozen or so E-Jets operated by RAE just to keep their program up and running. KLC handing over frames is out of the question I think. They are all E190's plus KLC needs them to cover KL's fleet reshuffle.
Heard that CityJet extended the leases on their RJ's a long time ago. Don't know if that's accurate. When would the CSeries be available anyway? I'd assume it would then take nearly 9 months or so to get it steep approach certified.
Heard that CityJet extended the leases on their RJ's a long time ago. Don't know if that's accurate. When would the CSeries be available anyway? I'd assume it would then take nearly 9 months or so to get it steep approach certified.
Thread Starter
CityJet didn't so much extend the leases as replace their aircraft over the last few years. Their old, somewhat ragbag collection of secondhand 146-200s were all replaced by 26 RJ85s they bought from Northwest, some of the last built, dating from around 2000. Of course, given that the aircraft look pretty much the same you might not particularly notice it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a video interview with the Cityjet CEO on Flight International recently and he said that they plan to operate the RJ85 for the next ten years as they are still fairly young and refurbished. They are more concerned about a Fokker 50 replacement and are actively looking for it, although I fail to see what alternatives are around. The only "sort-of" 50 seater still being built and capable of LCY operations is the ATR42-600. So it is probably either upgrading routes to the RJ85 or, if the route does not have the pax-volume to do so, chopping them.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was a video interview with the Cityjet CEO on Flight International recently and he said that they plan to operate the RJ85 for the next ten years as they are still fairly young and refurbished.
Thread Starter
If the route does not have the volume for an RJ85 (which many don't) then I would have thought our friends from Cambridge with their Dornier's would be a suitable solution.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the days of 30seat aircraft of routes from LCY are numbered. Unless you are able to sell tickets at a huge premium on those flights, the figures simply don't add up. The same is probably true for 50 seaters, and the interesting question is whether Cityjet indeed looks for a 50seater as the Fokker 50 replacement. With the RJ85s seating 95pax, an alternative could be a 70seater aircraft - isn't LCY sort of pricing anything smaller than 70seats out of the market by not offering lower fees for smaller aircraft? I am pretty sure that in a few years the smallest aircraft we will see at LCY are Q400 and ATR72s.
If Cityjet should indeed go for a 50seater, I don't see the point replacing Fokker 50s with 2nd hand Q300s. Not sure, but I doubt that the Q300 are much more economical than the Fokkers. Plus, the problem VLM always faced as long as they were independent was that with a slow turboprop the choice of possible destinations from LCY was severly restricted, with most destinations coming under an icreasing pressure from high speed trains.
DB - just spend 15 minutes or so to find the link again, but was unsuccessful. I stumbled across it last week while browsing the extremely disorganized flightglobal website. The interview was shot on the tarmac at LCY in front of one of the RJ85
If Cityjet should indeed go for a 50seater, I don't see the point replacing Fokker 50s with 2nd hand Q300s. Not sure, but I doubt that the Q300 are much more economical than the Fokkers. Plus, the problem VLM always faced as long as they were independent was that with a slow turboprop the choice of possible destinations from LCY was severly restricted, with most destinations coming under an icreasing pressure from high speed trains.
DB - just spend 15 minutes or so to find the link again, but was unsuccessful. I stumbled across it last week while browsing the extremely disorganized flightglobal website. The interview was shot on the tarmac at LCY in front of one of the RJ85
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: EASA country
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for other airlines operating E-Jets at LCY, José Luis Molina, Embraer’s new VP airline market, EMEA, said that FlyBaboo, which operates three E-190s, is considering services to the airport as well as another airline which wishes its firm plans to remain undisclosed, but which is receiving aircraft with the steep approach button fitted.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the JFK service still restricted from not landing before 0700 as per opening hours? I understand that the one of the first Eastbound legs was down before 7am and trouble ensued yet todays ba.com shows an 0640 arrival time.
Thread Starter
Most days it seems to get in about 0635-0650 (schedule 0715).Only two LCY movements are allowed 0630-0645, and only four 0645-0659.
London City Airport - Airport Operations
Presumably if it comes in early it can take one of these (which rarely seem to be all used at present). Maybe the early trouble was associated with these limits. If on easterlies there is a HACAN-inspired troublemaker over in Tower Hamlets who seems to have made a profession out of recording it all and then bleating to the authorities over one minute infringements.
London City Airport - Airport Operations
Presumably if it comes in early it can take one of these (which rarely seem to be all used at present). Maybe the early trouble was associated with these limits. If on easterlies there is a HACAN-inspired troublemaker over in Tower Hamlets who seems to have made a profession out of recording it all and then bleating to the authorities over one minute infringements.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's interesting, thanks for the link.
HACAN inspired you say?
May I remind you WHBM that Tower Hamlets does not need new wealth creating private sector business like er....flights in the morning as 59.5 seconds of sleep is more important than some business banker going to a meeting. We have a fine thriving public sector as can be seen by the millions of badly dressed council workers employed in Building 1000 just across the dock. A client state does not service itself sir and it most certainly doesn't need to get up that early!!!
You should be more culturally aware. I must go now to water the magic money tree.
*removes tongue from cheek*
HACAN inspired you say?
May I remind you WHBM that Tower Hamlets does not need new wealth creating private sector business like er....flights in the morning as 59.5 seconds of sleep is more important than some business banker going to a meeting. We have a fine thriving public sector as can be seen by the millions of badly dressed council workers employed in Building 1000 just across the dock. A client state does not service itself sir and it most certainly doesn't need to get up that early!!!
You should be more culturally aware. I must go now to water the magic money tree.
*removes tongue from cheek*
Thread Starter
Do I read on the LCY Consultative Committee website that Newham Council are now appointing a FULL TIME officer just to monitor the airport's Section 106 agreements (alias for blackmail) that the airport has been forced into as part of their expansion scheme and furthermore that the airport, who must now be one of the largest business rates payers in Newham, has been forced to fund this council post themselves (doubtless complete with 35-hour week and index-linked pension), yet another desk in "Building for 1000 Jobsworths". And another car no doubt.
Last edited by WHBM; 10th Nov 2009 at 18:13.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WHBM:
I am a big fan of LCY, and when I lived in East London I tried to use it at any opportunity rather than any of the other London airports. I certainly hope it continues to develop at a good rate, and once things pick up again and its capacity can be increased to enable more services and a wider choice of destinations. So I was certainly no NIMBY.
However, I disagree with your opinion that s106 = "blackmail". I don't feel it is unreasonable for a facility such as LCY that generates public and private transport movements in the area, to pay for improvements to things like the DLR, bus routes and the local road network (for example).
This should always be the case, regardless whether it is LCY, LHR, a new ferry terminal or whatever.
Obviously, the local authority's demands should be reasonable. I am not aware of what exactly is on LB Newham's s106 list, however I do believe that they are right to expect LCY to help fund improvements to the local infrastructure.
the airport's Section 106 agreements (alias for blackmail)
However, I disagree with your opinion that s106 = "blackmail". I don't feel it is unreasonable for a facility such as LCY that generates public and private transport movements in the area, to pay for improvements to things like the DLR, bus routes and the local road network (for example).
This should always be the case, regardless whether it is LCY, LHR, a new ferry terminal or whatever.
Obviously, the local authority's demands should be reasonable. I am not aware of what exactly is on LB Newham's s106 list, however I do believe that they are right to expect LCY to help fund improvements to the local infrastructure.
I agree with IJM in general concerning Section 106 agreements, at least as far as airports are concerned.
Coupled to the SEN runway extension planning application is a 106 agreement includes capping total annual movements, a night movement quota, 'preferred runway' operations, a limit of 10% for cargo movements and a new airport link road. No one could be a more dyed in the wool supporter of aviation that I, but these days airport operations cannot be governed by gentlemen's agreements and goodwill alone. Any airport expansion has to carry majority public support, or at least acquiescence, if it is to overcome the planning hurdles. A 106 agreement is the most effective way of achieving that.
Coupled to the SEN runway extension planning application is a 106 agreement includes capping total annual movements, a night movement quota, 'preferred runway' operations, a limit of 10% for cargo movements and a new airport link road. No one could be a more dyed in the wool supporter of aviation that I, but these days airport operations cannot be governed by gentlemen's agreements and goodwill alone. Any airport expansion has to carry majority public support, or at least acquiescence, if it is to overcome the planning hurdles. A 106 agreement is the most effective way of achieving that.