Chambery (CMF)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chambery (CMF)
I note Snowjet is no longer a direct sell operation (LGW & STN to CMF), but I'm more intrigued by the lack of Easy & Ryan on this route.
The main scheduled player is Jet2, who aren't a London based carrier.
It is very rare for more routes to be available from the regions without a decent offering from London.
Is there a commercial reason for this, or is it a technical matter to do with the airport?
The runway is just over 2km, altitude less than 300m above sea level. Are there obstacles blocking the approach that preclude the operation of a (slightly) larger jet like the 738?
I seem to recall GNB being like this a few years back, but U2 have loads of routes there now.
The main scheduled player is Jet2, who aren't a London based carrier.
It is very rare for more routes to be available from the regions without a decent offering from London.
Is there a commercial reason for this, or is it a technical matter to do with the airport?
The runway is just over 2km, altitude less than 300m above sea level. Are there obstacles blocking the approach that preclude the operation of a (slightly) larger jet like the 738?
I seem to recall GNB being like this a few years back, but U2 have loads of routes there now.
Terrain at Chambery is quite different from Norfolk - it's in a steep valley, with big lumps of rock at one end of the valley as well. There's only one easy way in or out, namely over the lake.
That being said, if the Russians can manage to fly in from Moscow...
That being said, if the Russians can manage to fly in from Moscow...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Terrain at Chambery is quite different from Norfolk - it's in a steep valley, with big lumps of rock at one end of the valley as well. .
There's only one easy way in or out, namely over the lake
I've not come across this at any commercial airport in Europe. Lukla in Nepal is famous for only offering one chance, but that is far more dramatic - and only for sub 20 seaters.
I have never seen a landing on 28 at SXM, although they are of course famous for much bigger birds!
It seems odd that LS would go in there, but U2 & FR wouldn't. If there is a safety reason, surely that would apply to all of them?
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: FL370
Age: 38
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have never seen a landing on 28 at SXM, although they are of course famous for much bigger birds!
regarding runway usage? Ie approach on 18, take off on 36
The missed approach is a fairly complex manoeuvre requiring strict adherance to speeds, and angles of bank to get turned to exit the way you came in, and of course climb performance is rather important to get high enough to turn left out of the valley before colliding with the rock wall at the north end.
Special training required.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may primarily be due to a general lack of demand...there are already three major players around CMF, including LYS, GNB and GVA.
Also was looking at the size of the main apron the other day, and it's almost as bad as JSI
I can't see specific crew training and qualifications being a problem here, look at easyJet operating in/out of INN.
Another striking example would be SIR in Switzerland (similar runway lenght and instrument approach), very popular ski destination but with only a few airlines (Titan?) venturing there...
Also was looking at the size of the main apron the other day, and it's almost as bad as JSI
I can't see specific crew training and qualifications being a problem here, look at easyJet operating in/out of INN.
Another striking example would be SIR in Switzerland (similar runway lenght and instrument approach), very popular ski destination but with only a few airlines (Titan?) venturing there...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Various skiing/boarding forums have been full of complaints about CMF services. Luggage regularly left behind, or routed via GVA because of loading weight restrictions by Jet2 (ski flights are invariably full luggage allowance plus skis for most pax). I assume that the other players don't want that sort of hassle. CMF use seems to have been driven primarily by seat charter by TUI group companies, although they don't use TUI metal !
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Here
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall CMF has quite a big percentage of diversions which might be a little off putting for some, screwing up a days schedule.
The problem is not getting in, but getting out again when you can only use runway 36. I've heard of flights diverting because they didnt think they would get out again.
The problem is not getting in, but getting out again when you can only use runway 36. I've heard of flights diverting because they didnt think they would get out again.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newcastle NI
Posts: 824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The attraction of CMF is shorter transfer times to resort, important for places like Tignes or Val, the problem is that slot delays into CMF and consolidating coaches means that any saving in transfer time is often wasted by sitting around in the coach park. Factor in weather risks and payload restrictions and it becomes 50/50 as to whether it's worth it?
The busier the flight ( heavier ) the higher the approach speed means a higher, more restrictive minima due to lower MACG %
When it works well it's great, but GVA is less of an operational risk, ask the Flybe boys ( now men !)
The busier the flight ( heavier ) the higher the approach speed means a higher, more restrictive minima due to lower MACG %
When it works well it's great, but GVA is less of an operational risk, ask the Flybe boys ( now men !)
