CORK - 5

[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by 840

But, realistically, Aer Lingus are not going to operate long-haul out of Cork

Why?
- Wrong aircraft types (A330 too large, A320 lacks the range)
- Fully utilised A330 fleet
- Maintenance issues from a single A330 based in Cork
- Dilution of existing market from Shannon and Dublin
- Almost everyone not going from Shannon or Dublin leaves on an EI flight to LHR or AMS

The only reason they might set up a service from Cork is to reclaim their territory if another operator came in.

In the meantime, if it ever does happen, it's likely to be a US operator of 757, 767 or 737-900s.

That's a very good summary. The periodic debate about whether the ORK runway can take a 330 misses the point of whether a carrier could profitably operate a transatlantic service from Cork. EI wouldn't do so, for the reasons 840 states above. And in the case of a US carrier like Continental/United, one would have to ask why they would target Cork when they couldn't make a much larger unserved UK market such as Bristol work. If there were to be a transatlantic service at ORK (which seems unlikely), I think it would have to be a different US operator not currently serving SNN (i.e. with less risk of cannibalisation), such as US Airways. But again, this just doesn't seem very likely to me.

[brian_dromey]

While we would all like to see services to JFK/BOS on the departures boards at ORK, it will always be a difficult sell.

- Relatively small catchment population, well served by both SNN and DUB. Much of the catchment of ORK is well served by road, particularly those areas to the North of the city.
- Frequent multiple daily flights to AMS and LHR provide flexibility for onward connections, the daily CDG offers another alternative. MAN is also quite a popular connecting point for EK, again with 2x daily flights, LGW is also an alternative.
- The aircraft EI use for transatlantic service may/may not face operational restrictions out of ORK and are likely too large for the market. Aside from the presence of existing EI service to JFK and BOS in SNN.
- Carriers with the right sized aircraft (757) already serve SNN. Huge subsides and revenue guarantees would be required to get them to move their business form SNN to ORK. I can't see them serving both airports concurrently. In the current climate I can not see business prepared to put a revenue guarantee in place.

Personally, I feel there is lower hanging fruit that could be piked first. Routes like FRA and ZRH, possibly HEL or CPH, would provide improved links to Asia and the middle east, which is what we really need. Other things like restoring the link to DUB or getting the second daily EI flight to LGW back would be much more beneficial from a connectivity standpoint than a 'prestige' north american route. If I were the CAA, I would be pushing very hard for EIR to base another ATR at ORK, rather than pushing EI for an A330.

[CCR]

An extra EIR ATR in Cork and a reinstatement of the Dublin route with full EI connectivity would be a great start to 2012!

Good to hear that the 787 and the A350 would not be weight restricted on flights to the US from Cork's 7,000 ft runway. Technology it seems will overcome Cork airport's runway restrictions.
Agree that the most likely carrier to start US/Cork flights would be a US carrier not flying to Shannon and the only chance of an Irish carrier coming on the route in the future would possibly be Ryanair if they succeeded in getting a deal with Boeing on an order of 737-900's or 787's

[PPRuNeUser0176]

Agree that the most likely carrier to start US/Cork flights would be a US carrier not flying to Shannon and the only chance of an Irish carrier coming on the route in the future would possibly be Ryanair if they succeeded in getting a deal with Boeing on an order of 737-900's or 787's

Ryanair would be using B767 on US routes. They plan to buy up many once other carriers switch to B777,787,A350/A380. The will only be ordering short haul aircraft.

[dublinaviator]

Originally Posted by EI-EIDW

Ryanair would be using B767 on US routes. They plan to buy up many once other carriers switch to B777,787,A350/A380. The will only be ordering short haul aircraft.

Where'd you read that?

[PPRuNeUser0176]

MOL has said in the past that he planns to buy up to 50 B767 once current carriers move to larger aircraft. he may of also said 757. Will try and find it on line.

[Jack1985]

MOL has said in the past that he planns to buy up to 50 B767 once current carriers move to larger aircraft. he may of also said 757. Will try and find it on line.

I highly doubt that, the reason ''RyanAtlantic'' is delayed is because the A350, B787 production delays aswell as the A330/B777. No way will MOL be purchasing B757 or B767 aircraft.

Ryanair's Mission Statement:

1) Safety
2) The Lowest Fares
3) On-Time flights
4) The Largest European Airline
5) The Greenest (New) fleet

[aer lingus]

The hour to an hour and a half it takes to drive to Shannon is more than compensated by the time/hassle saved doing preflight US customs and immigration. If there was a decent motorway between the two cities you would do the journey in 45mins. If you ever watch a 757 taking off from Shannon they use most of the runway which is 1km longer than Cork's, so for anyone saying that a fully laded A332 can take off safetly, I say check again. No margin for error.

[dublinaviator]

Originally Posted by aer lingus

If you ever watch a 757 taking off from Shannon they use most of the runway which is 1km longer than Cork's, so for anyone saying that a fully laded A332 can take off safetly, I say check again. No margin for error.

Its not as straight forward as that. You'll probably find that many pilots use reduced thrust on takeoff from Shannon because of the longer runway. The reason they do this is to save fuel and reduce wear and tear on the engine, which increases it's lifespan.

[Jack1985]

Its not as straight forward as that. You'll probably find that many pilots use reduced thrust on takeoff from Shannon because of the longer runway. The reason they do this is to save fuel and reduce wear and tear on the engine, which increases it's lifespan.

Exactly many pilots do this for example, a few FR pilots at ORK i know (and correct me if i have quoted the wrong thrust quantity's) used to use just 19K thrust on the B738 for the DUB flights (very low loads) then on the ACE flights full 27K so runway length is not the issue pilots can demand the thrust setting they need and which is more economical, also to point out before it was axed CO used to operate the B752 full (and with more fuel then an ORK-EWR flight) and could take off safely with more thrust required, just like WW do at BHD to operate the B733 and B735 to European destinations.

[Johnny Tightlips]

Exactly many pilots do this for example, a few FR pilots at ORK i know (and correct me if i have quoted the wrong thrust quantity's) used to use just 19K thrust on the B738 for the DUB flights (very low loads) then on the ACE flights full 27K so runway length is not the issue pilots can demand the thrust setting they need and which is more economical, also to point out before it was axed CO used to operate the B752 full (and with more fuel then an ORK-EWR flight) and could take off safely with more thrust required, just like WW do at BHD to operate the B733 and B735 to European destinations.

Good guess but it's 22k and 26k but by the time we would assume the actual thrust coming out of the engines would be much less. The problem with ORK is when the runway is wet the landing performance is very tight and add on the gale regularly coming from the west and the down slope on 17 it's not great. Now the 757 might be OK but the 738 is not great in general with the landing performance, the A320 is much better in that departement due to their carbon brakes.

[Jack1985]

22k and 26k

Thats it haha thanks

[Tom the Tenor]

I am pretty sure there is an option for carbon brakes for the 737 - it may well form part of the package on some of the GOL 737s in Brazil. After all the distances available at both Santos Dumont in Rio and Conghonas in Sao Paulo are even tighter than in Cork.

There was a point well made above as even a relatively short runway extension at Cork would make a huge, huge difference in the performance of some airliners. Cork 2133 meteres, Newcastle, UK 2333 metres. They have seasonal flights to Florida and now the Emirates flight to Dubai. For Cork, I would not even be as ambitious as seeking a 200 metres extension and I feel it would be sorted out in double quick time if there was a firm committment given to Cork of a service, west or east, as it certainly would not have to be somewhere like New York which at one time some of us in Cork had great hopes for but on mature reflection it is likely never to happen - the strangehold held by snn is just far too strong. Far better for Cork to aim for holding on to the likes of the new Brussels service and maybe making a deal with Ryanair for them to hang on to Milan in the winter time.

Far more realistic than what were in hindsight fanciful hopes of a North Atlantic service in my opinion.

[CCR]

Just a 300m extension would be great..it's got to be the next major airport infrastructure decision along with a taxiway to the new threshold of an extended runway 35 that the CAA/DAA has to make.

[aer lingus]

Clear the debt first, by that time there will be a motorway to Limerick so no need for runway extension, get more airbridges I say, and shame EI into using them. Nothing more annoying than boarding from gate 5 with a perfectly good airbridge lying idle and having an airbridge at your destiation.

[840]

Certainly a runway extension could be putting the cart before the horse.

At the moment, the only long-haul route that might be viable is US East Coast, but when that is possible in existing aircraft types, it's more important to get the route going first, then see if the extension is needed to develop it.

In the meantime, the only real affect it restricts aircraft type on potential charter routes to Cyprus and Egypt, but that is a very limited market (Are there any Cyprus charters this year?).

I don't agree that the distance to Shannon precludes US routes. Enough people travel to North America via LHR and AMS to suggest that price is the main driver of route selection.

I'd also question how long US border clearance will be provided at Shannon. It must cost a fortune compared to the number of passengers using it. In financially challenging times, it could provide an easy target.

[CCR]

That's right 840, most Cork-US passengers travel via London and Amsterdam.
Thing is to attract a carrier on a Cork-US route (not that it's going to happen this year or next!) with a 7,000 ft runway, the carrier will have to have a 737-900/757/787 so it won't be weight restricted. Kind of limits your chances of attracting a carrier in the first place.
It's more than 20 years since the runway at Cork recieved it's last modest extension, it's high time it recieved another. A 7,000 ft runway is quite short by international standards.

By the way, I read that there will be a feasability study done this year on extending the 17/35 runway in Cork. You can read it under "Development Plans" on the link below

Cork Airport - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tom1975]

I believe the A321 has enough range to fly to JFK from ORK. Perhaps, EI may look at this as a possibility in the future.
I agree, A330 has too much capacity for ORK to fill the route, but A321 could be a better fit!

[Angry Rebel]

The CBP in SNN doesn't cost SNN anything, so it won't be a target for anything. The cost was an upfront capital cost, the ongoing costs are the running costs of the CBP themselves, which are borne by the US.

[aer lingus]

They won't be able to pay for a feasability study never mind extending the runway and terminal buildings.These are the original plans which with the current state of the economy means we'll be lucky to see any of this in our lifetime,