LONDON CITY - 2
Paxing All Over The World
These will be familiar to many but some newcomers may not have seen them: In pictures: London City Airport at 30 - BBC News
French media reporting that Angers airport is calling it a day with regards to flights by passenger airlines. The summer seasonal route to London City (as well as routes to Nice and Toulouse) will seemingly not return later this year. A formal meeting will be held on 16 January about this, but seems more likely that cash needed to keep Angers ATC resourced for commercial passenger flights will not be available in budget. Between 2011 and 2015, Angers saw less than 9,000 pax per year - it's in mainland France, not an offshore island and an hour's drive from Nantes
Update - closure of Angers to scheduled traffic has been confirmed so unless there's some great surprise, the summer seasonal route between London City and Angers will not be returning in 2017
Update - closure of Angers to scheduled traffic has been confirmed so unless there's some great surprise, the summer seasonal route between London City and Angers will not be returning in 2017
Last edited by davidjohnson6; 16th Jan 2017 at 19:37.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The July 2016 planning permission states:
Any information if the required waiver has been granted?
If not, it looks as if Cityjet is in serious trouble then as they have no alternative aircraft type available. As far as I see it, Swiss has reacted by outsourcing flights to Helvetic's E190s.
Interesting sidenote: This will take away business from the likes of Jota and WDL that were the operators of choice with their 146s/Avros for short-term leases covering LCY routes. And this will also present airlines serving LCY with a dilemma when they need short term replacements for AOG or aircraft in maintenance. The only other aircraft that could be leased in is the Embraer 190 which, as far as I see it, is not offered by European ACMI-specialists.
From 31 March 2017, no AVRO RJ100 type aircraft (or any variant thereof) shall operate from the Airport at any time unless it has been demonstrated to and approved in writing by the local planning authority that noise from such Aircraft does not exceed the maximum noise levels specified in any approved scheme under Condition 18.
If not, it looks as if Cityjet is in serious trouble then as they have no alternative aircraft type available. As far as I see it, Swiss has reacted by outsourcing flights to Helvetic's E190s.
Interesting sidenote: This will take away business from the likes of Jota and WDL that were the operators of choice with their 146s/Avros for short-term leases covering LCY routes. And this will also present airlines serving LCY with a dilemma when they need short term replacements for AOG or aircraft in maintenance. The only other aircraft that could be leased in is the Embraer 190 which, as far as I see it, is not offered by European ACMI-specialists.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, England
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The July 2016 planning permission states:
Any information if the required waiver has been granted?
If not, it looks as if Cityjet is in serious trouble then as they have no alternative aircraft type available. As far as I see it, Swiss has reacted by outsourcing flights to Helvetic's E190s.
Interesting sidenote: This will take away business from the likes of Jota and WDL that were the operators of choice with their 146s/Avros for short-term leases covering LCY routes. And this will also present airlines serving LCY with a dilemma when they need short term replacements for AOG or aircraft in maintenance. The only other aircraft that could be leased in is the Embraer 190 which, as far as I see it, is not offered by European ACMI-specialists.
Any information if the required waiver has been granted?
If not, it looks as if Cityjet is in serious trouble then as they have no alternative aircraft type available. As far as I see it, Swiss has reacted by outsourcing flights to Helvetic's E190s.
Interesting sidenote: This will take away business from the likes of Jota and WDL that were the operators of choice with their 146s/Avros for short-term leases covering LCY routes. And this will also present airlines serving LCY with a dilemma when they need short term replacements for AOG or aircraft in maintenance. The only other aircraft that could be leased in is the Embraer 190 which, as far as I see it, is not offered by European ACMI-specialists.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 2,781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for 'whisperjet'! To my mind the Sukhoijet is quite noisy being true to Russian form. A recent article in a prominent article reviewed Interjet's Sukhoijet and came to the same conclusion... So let's see how suitable it is once adapted for steep approach and LCY ops.
You'd have to question how Cityjet have not been planning for this, my guess is that they are, and if necessary they'll get some sort off exemption until the new planes are adapted...
You'd have to question how Cityjet have not been planning for this, my guess is that they are, and if necessary they'll get some sort off exemption until the new planes are adapted...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry hang on, they're banning the RJ100? Surely it's quiter than the Embraers that replaced them! They make such a racket in comparison. I was a local for a few years....
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because of the altitude, I think approach noise is the bigger issue than take-off noise. So 3db more for the Avro RJ compared to the SSJ means a doubling of the noise, as far as I have my physics correct.
Thread Starter
Living next to LCY, and watching the departures daily, I can tell you that the RJ85 is by no means the noisiest aircraft out of the airport. In fact it is one of the quietest. There is another prevalent type which is far more prominent, and in fact is noticeably different in its operation between its different operators - one in particular seems to gun the throttle more than others.
I wonder also how any local authority can just change the conditions under which an aircraft operator has run for many years, and at two months notice. Surely this is CAA territory.
I wonder also how any local authority can just change the conditions under which an aircraft operator has run for many years, and at two months notice. Surely this is CAA territory.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 2,175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder also how any local authority can just change the conditions under which an aircraft operator has run for many years, and at two months notice. Surely this is CAA territory.
If the planning permission was intended to target the RJ85 then the condition would surely have specified RJ85, or RJ85 and RJ100.
As it is they have chosen to nominate an aircraft type (RJ100) that is going out of LCY service in any case. So a political case of seeming to do something without causing disruption and aggravation.
That planning consent seems to date back to last July. Submissions by interested parties would have taken place much earlier. Both the airport and City Jet would surely have been kept appraised of potential developments. City Jet are selling their summer programme as normal, i.e. up to end of October. I would say the short term risk is nil.
Longer term who knows ?
As it is they have chosen to nominate an aircraft type (RJ100) that is going out of LCY service in any case. So a political case of seeming to do something without causing disruption and aggravation.
That planning consent seems to date back to last July. Submissions by interested parties would have taken place much earlier. Both the airport and City Jet would surely have been kept appraised of potential developments. City Jet are selling their summer programme as normal, i.e. up to end of October. I would say the short term risk is nil.
Longer term who knows ?
Last edited by Tagron; 21st Jan 2017 at 23:17. Reason: punctuation