BIRMINGHAM - 6
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAT111
Re runway performance.
A 787-9 requires a 3000m metres certified runway at MTOW at sea level. As BHX has a height of 325ft above sea level you can add a tiny bit more to that.
Therefore to reach the furthest destinations BHX doesn't have a long enough runway at present ,well short of that at 2599M, quarter of a mile short.
BHX runway will be 3004M when extended.
Nigel
Re runway performance.
A 787-9 requires a 3000m metres certified runway at MTOW at sea level. As BHX has a height of 325ft above sea level you can add a tiny bit more to that.
Therefore to reach the furthest destinations BHX doesn't have a long enough runway at present ,well short of that at 2599M, quarter of a mile short.
BHX runway will be 3004M when extended.
Nigel
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
Thanks - this is precisely the sort of operational justification that makes sense. I was not trolling honestly - I do realise the extension at BHX really does have a 10-20 year economic benefit.
See my posting history if you like. [Edit: I was a sceptic but hopeful - The West Mids does need connections (air/rail) to Europe and the rest of the world - That's a lesson from history, think of the old coaching towns after the coming of the railways ]
When all is said and done, if there's a long term increase in traffic and I'm not addressing 2 - 4 years, but longer time scale and it could be the model for those existing regional's where similar extensions are possible.
The coming of PIA, Emirates & Air Blue points to an interesting future that I as a former Brummie did not see even 4 years ago.
CAT III
See my posting history if you like. [Edit: I was a sceptic but hopeful - The West Mids does need connections (air/rail) to Europe and the rest of the world - That's a lesson from history, think of the old coaching towns after the coming of the railways ]
When all is said and done, if there's a long term increase in traffic and I'm not addressing 2 - 4 years, but longer time scale and it could be the model for those existing regional's where similar extensions are possible.
The coming of PIA, Emirates & Air Blue points to an interesting future that I as a former Brummie did not see even 4 years ago.
CAT III
Last edited by Guest 112233; 1st Oct 2013 at 13:07.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flights of around 7 hours are no problem off our runway the A380 did it to DXB. Flight time to Islammabad is a tad under 7 hours.
The fact that BHX has attracted two of the worlds most basket case airlines is being celebrated in terms of the aircraft they fly, not the markets they serve or the companies themselves. It's not impossible that someone might want to fly from China to BHX, however until LHR-China is maxed out and a mature market, I can think of no earthly reason why they would. HS2 is only going to make it easier to serve Birmingham from LHR. BHX is getting killed on long haul in exactly the same way as LGW, it's overwhelmed by being too close to a critical mass LHR.
A 787-9 requires a 3000m metres certified runway at MTOW at sea level.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 1st Oct 2013 at 15:18.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness,
I give up ..any journey even on a B787 longer than 7 hoursish needs the runway extension;
Beijing is nearly a 12 hr flight, Bankok over 12 hours Hong Kong even longer.All are targets of BHX, With Beijing a real possibility in the next 5 yrs.
The field length figures are from Boeing themselves.
Do you really think BHX would spend millions build a runway extension if the 787/777 etc could get to these locations off the current runway.
Before final agreement do you not think the financial backersof BHX runway extension taking the risks would not have demanded all available details on if it was needed with current and soon pending aircraft..?
Nigel
I give up ..any journey even on a B787 longer than 7 hoursish needs the runway extension;
Beijing is nearly a 12 hr flight, Bankok over 12 hours Hong Kong even longer.All are targets of BHX, With Beijing a real possibility in the next 5 yrs.
The field length figures are from Boeing themselves.
Do you really think BHX would spend millions build a runway extension if the 787/777 etc could get to these locations off the current runway.
Before final agreement do you not think the financial backersof BHX runway extension taking the risks would not have demanded all available details on if it was needed with current and soon pending aircraft..?
Nigel
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Cat II,
No problem.
The bottom line as I point out to Skipness is BHX would not have saddled themselves with £65 million debt for the extension ,if the current planes 777/787 etc could have reached these 10-13 hour destinations off the current runway ?
Believe me before you spend such big money your going to get your technical and Ops teams to be looking at all the performance tabels.
Will be interesting to see if BHX gamble in attracting these sort of routes comes off. Thomson are talking of doing direct Phuket with a 787 and that alone will could be a not to distant route for us, needing the extension.
Vancouver and Calgary would also require it,and Ait Transat may be be tempted.
Nigel
No problem.
The bottom line as I point out to Skipness is BHX would not have saddled themselves with £65 million debt for the extension ,if the current planes 777/787 etc could have reached these 10-13 hour destinations off the current runway ?
Believe me before you spend such big money your going to get your technical and Ops teams to be looking at all the performance tabels.
Will be interesting to see if BHX gamble in attracting these sort of routes comes off. Thomson are talking of doing direct Phuket with a 787 and that alone will could be a not to distant route for us, needing the extension.
Vancouver and Calgary would also require it,and Ait Transat may be be tempted.
Nigel
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: u.k.
Age: 56
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that BHX has attracted two of the worlds most basket case airlines
Nigel , as you said the runway extension has been done to death, those who still want to say it is a field of dreams and have tumbleweed rolling down the extension they can go ahead .
The time to critize maybe in 5 years time , but until then....
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getonitt,
Yes agree, as its a long term thing (once its down its down)... I will be generous and give them 10 years to prove it was the right call.Fingers crossed for them.
A bearing might be what is done about lack of capacity in the SE.If they plumb for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and one at Stansted then that would be good news.
However if its a 4 runway LHR or new hub north west of LHR then thats too close for comfort..luckily can see the arguments lasting another decade before they choose.
Nigel
Yes agree, as its a long term thing (once its down its down)... I will be generous and give them 10 years to prove it was the right call.Fingers crossed for them.
A bearing might be what is done about lack of capacity in the SE.If they plumb for a 2nd runway at Gatwick and one at Stansted then that would be good news.
However if its a 4 runway LHR or new hub north west of LHR then thats too close for comfort..luckily can see the arguments lasting another decade before they choose.
Nigel
Nigel,
Fortunately with the UK's arcane planning system, vociferous NIMBY lobby, and constant political indecision, I reckon that oil will have run out before LHR ever got 4 runways!
Even HS2 will get done before LHR get's it's forth runway, possible even their third.
However if its a 4 runway LHR or new hub north west of LHR then that's too close for comfort..luckily can see the arguments lasting another decade before they choose.
Even HS2 will get done before LHR get's it's forth runway, possible even their third.
Nigel (and others),
Your faith in the logic of the Birmingham management's decision-making is very touching! There are a number of reasons why BHX may have opted for a runway extension over (say) more terminal space or parking areas, not all of them logical.
The first, and most obvious is that the runway extension was probably first considered well before the 787 spec was firmed-up. The expectation then was that long-haul meant long runways, now not so important.
The second was that initial planning would have taken place prior to the financial crash/recession that we and much of the rest of the western world, have been suffering for five years. In those days, long-haul flights and holidays were in greater demand, people (thought they) had more money, and air traffic was increasing everywhere.
It is not unknown for management teams to suffer from hubris - the thought that they and their business is more important than it is by objective analysis. I'm sure this played a part in the BHX runway decision, augmented by its close cousin, local pride. ("If MAN can get long haul, so can we - we are a bigger city").
I would be very surprised if the expenditure on the runway extension is ever commercially justified. The idea that flights to China are merely five years away is fantasy, I'm afraid. BHX suffers from its proximity to London - and always will. Yes, there is scope for some long-haul, but not much. An analysis of current long-haul operations shows a couple of transatlantic routes - not much changed over the years - and services aimed at the significant immigrant population and their descendants visiting their ancestral home countries (PIA, Air India, even Emirates and THY).
Sorry for the reality check!
Your faith in the logic of the Birmingham management's decision-making is very touching! There are a number of reasons why BHX may have opted for a runway extension over (say) more terminal space or parking areas, not all of them logical.
The first, and most obvious is that the runway extension was probably first considered well before the 787 spec was firmed-up. The expectation then was that long-haul meant long runways, now not so important.
The second was that initial planning would have taken place prior to the financial crash/recession that we and much of the rest of the western world, have been suffering for five years. In those days, long-haul flights and holidays were in greater demand, people (thought they) had more money, and air traffic was increasing everywhere.
It is not unknown for management teams to suffer from hubris - the thought that they and their business is more important than it is by objective analysis. I'm sure this played a part in the BHX runway decision, augmented by its close cousin, local pride. ("If MAN can get long haul, so can we - we are a bigger city").
I would be very surprised if the expenditure on the runway extension is ever commercially justified. The idea that flights to China are merely five years away is fantasy, I'm afraid. BHX suffers from its proximity to London - and always will. Yes, there is scope for some long-haul, but not much. An analysis of current long-haul operations shows a couple of transatlantic routes - not much changed over the years - and services aimed at the significant immigrant population and their descendants visiting their ancestral home countries (PIA, Air India, even Emirates and THY).
Sorry for the reality check!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LGS,
Not sure of a reality check but like us all you are entitled to your opinion.
I do agree will it ever be paid for.. well look at Manchester how many years has the 2nd runway been built and for large parts of the day its still hardly used...
Looking at the MAN Airport threads seems no major route announcements next year to justify its use again. Now this is a white elephant just my opinion of course
Nigel
Not sure of a reality check but like us all you are entitled to your opinion.
I do agree will it ever be paid for.. well look at Manchester how many years has the 2nd runway been built and for large parts of the day its still hardly used...
Looking at the MAN Airport threads seems no major route announcements next year to justify its use again. Now this is a white elephant just my opinion of course
Nigel
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel can you link to the quoted Boeing figures you're thinking of, I'm curious. I am just coming at matters from the perspective of shooting the China Southern B787-8 out of LHR and at no time thinking it ate up a whole lot of runway.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel I think if we had not hit the finacial hole in 2008 MAN runway 23L/05R
would have been open for most of the day from 06.00 to 20.00 with maybe just a small gap from 10.30 till 13.00
From a typical July day in 2007 with 708 movements average with a low of 514 in 2010 now back to 543 still shows we are quite a way behind the busy days
Chaps
would have been open for most of the day from 06.00 to 20.00 with maybe just a small gap from 10.30 till 13.00
From a typical July day in 2007 with 708 movements average with a low of 514 in 2010 now back to 543 still shows we are quite a way behind the busy days
Chaps
There is little doubt that greater runway length is going to provide operators with more flexibility. It's all very well if airliner "x" can get to city "y" off 2500m of concrete, in still air at sea level, but given that most airports aren't at sea level, wind conditions aren't ideal, and temperatures are often high, what is theoretically possible is often impossible in the reality of daily operations.
BHX runway extension is therefore going to be at least beneficial to the current operators, and will give the airport the opportunity to extend it's horizons.
Look across the channel; most major airports (serving the biggest cities / conurbations) have 3000m plus runways. In the UK, sadly, this is not the case. Apart from for London, the major cities (Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast) should all have this basic facility - sadly currently - and I'm writing this from memory - only MAN and CWL qualify, with BHX joining the 3000m club next year.
It's the "infrastructure thing" that has held the UK back for years that has resulted in this lamentable situation.
BHX runway extension is therefore going to be at least beneficial to the current operators, and will give the airport the opportunity to extend it's horizons.
Look across the channel; most major airports (serving the biggest cities / conurbations) have 3000m plus runways. In the UK, sadly, this is not the case. Apart from for London, the major cities (Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast) should all have this basic facility - sadly currently - and I'm writing this from memory - only MAN and CWL qualify, with BHX joining the 3000m club next year.
It's the "infrastructure thing" that has held the UK back for years that has resulted in this lamentable situation.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness you seem to think I make all this stuff up... 
I have put these on here before.. so for the the last time:
First figures are from Boeings own website and relate to the 787-8 below MTOW at 476,000, MTOW is 510,000 .
Clearly show that at less than MTOW 9,255ft.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner : Analysis
Second lot show AT MTOW from another site over 10,000ft
Boeing 787 Dreamliner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 787-9 requires a bit more , not going to look for those for you as well !
So to repeat.. BHX current runway at 8,546 ft cannot support such hence the rreason the extension has been built..
I am not going to say any more on this topic as you clearly don't believe a word I say.
Nigel
I have put these on here before.. so for the the last time:First figures are from Boeings own website and relate to the 787-8 below MTOW at 476,000, MTOW is 510,000 .
Clearly show that at less than MTOW 9,255ft.
Boeing 787 Dreamliner : Analysis
Second lot show AT MTOW from another site over 10,000ft
Boeing 787 Dreamliner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The 787-9 requires a bit more , not going to look for those for you as well !
So to repeat.. BHX current runway at 8,546 ft cannot support such hence the rreason the extension has been built..
I am not going to say any more on this topic as you clearly don't believe a word I say.
Nigel
Last edited by nigel osborne; 2nd Oct 2013 at 09:38.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ericlday
Yes you are bang on;
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2013-07-25.pdf
ATNOTTS,
Yes agree with most of your overall synopsis.
CHAPS
Thank you for the updated info on MAN 2nd runway hope they can increase it soon too.
Nigel
Yes you are bang on;
http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...2013-07-25.pdf
ATNOTTS,
Yes agree with most of your overall synopsis.
CHAPS
Thank you for the updated info on MAN 2nd runway hope they can increase it soon too.
Nigel
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: stockport
Age: 69
Posts: 290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nigel
To add to my previous the number of pax per plane has increased by quite a large
total infact 37 per flight to 180 on transport flights when you strip cargo out ( very guestimated I`m afraid and the 1st year should have read 2006 not 2007
Chaps
To add to my previous the number of pax per plane has increased by quite a large
total infact 37 per flight to 180 on transport flights when you strip cargo out ( very guestimated I`m afraid and the 1st year should have read 2006 not 2007
Chaps
Last edited by chaps2011; 2nd Oct 2013 at 10:39.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skipness you seem to think I make all this stuff up... I have put these on here before.. so for the the last time:
First figures are from Boeings own website and relate to the 787-8 below MTOW at 476,000, MTOW is 510,000 .
Clearly show that at less than MTOW 9,255ft.
First figures are from Boeings own website and relate to the 787-8 below MTOW at 476,000, MTOW is 510,000 .
Clearly show that at less than MTOW 9,255ft.
Maybe I am just being a complete moron, it wouldn't be the first time....
I am not going to say any more on this topic as you clearly don't believe a word I say.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 2nd Oct 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: not entirely sure.....
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
china crisis?
Plenty of people dismissing Chinese flights on the basis that LHR would take all the demand.
As someone who works on the ground at BHX I would invite any of the doubters to spend a couple of days counting the number of passengers (both business and leisure/education) originating from China connecting to BHX through DXB, ZRH, CDG, AMS, FRA. Even CPH and BRU are seeing connectors from that part of the world.
I'm not saying it will happen the second the extension opens but there is sufficient demand now for a 3-4 days a week service.
S78
As someone who works on the ground at BHX I would invite any of the doubters to spend a couple of days counting the number of passengers (both business and leisure/education) originating from China connecting to BHX through DXB, ZRH, CDG, AMS, FRA. Even CPH and BRU are seeing connectors from that part of the world.
I'm not saying it will happen the second the extension opens but there is sufficient demand now for a 3-4 days a week service.
S78
ericlday
No, I stand corrected. I remember CWL having a runway extension a few years ago, and always thought it was a heck of a lot longer than that!
So the UK is even less well endowed with 3000m runways than I thought - not good really.
CWL has 2392m I believe.....stand corrected though !!!
So the UK is even less well endowed with 3000m runways than I thought - not good really.