Newcastle-9
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through the Masterplan, it would suggest the extra length would relieve some restrictions on Loads, Allow engines and brakes to be operated more economically/less wear,( Westbound departures due to Callerton Hill) - Although main reason for runway extension seems to be more related to route expansion to India, China and Atlanta USA, using A330-200/ -300, A350, Boeing 777 & 787 models. - Illustration of potential Route map with Aircraft capabilities is also in the link:
Figure 16 – Aircraft Range Performance on Extended Runway (Page 38):
https://www.newcastleairport.com/med...d-2019-lr_.pdf
Figure 16 – Aircraft Range Performance on Extended Runway (Page 38):
https://www.newcastleairport.com/med...d-2019-lr_.pdf
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 772
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading through the Masterplan, it would suggest the extra length would relieve some restrictions on Loads, Allow engines and brakes to be operated more economically/less wear, - Although main reason for runway extension seems to be more related to route expansion to India, China and Atlanta USA, using A330-200/ -300, A350, Boeing 777 & 787 models. - Illustration of potential Route map with Aircraft capabilities is also in the link:
Figure 16 – Aircraft Range Performance on Extended Runway (Page 38):
https://www.newcastleairport.com/med...d-2019-lr_.pdf
Figure 16 – Aircraft Range Performance on Extended Runway (Page 38):
https://www.newcastleairport.com/med...d-2019-lr_.pdf
If the current EK 777 is full with PAX does it severely limit the cargo?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ash666 wrote: If the current EK 777 is full with PAX does it severely limit the cargo?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,061
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VentureGo;
[url
[url
https://www.newcastleairport.com/media/2955/airport-masterplan-2035-updated-2019-lr_.pdf
1) Putting Reykjavik, Akureyri and Nuremberg on their map of destinations, even with an unexplained asterisk next to them, is pushing things a little.
2) They're saying the A1/A696 access needs improving. Why? Edit: The answer, although unconvincing, is in the report.
3) When every airport like Newcastle has a direct link to every airport like Sao Paulo, a) Sao Paulo airport will have to be bigger than Sao Paulo, and b) Newcastle and Sao Paulo will both be underwater.
On point 3 I'm maybe being flippant but I'm making a relevant question: What is the limit to growth, both for worldwide air travel and for NCL? Because there has to be one.
1) Putting Reykjavik, Akureyri and Nuremberg on their map of destinations, even with an unexplained asterisk next to them, is pushing things a little.
2) They're saying the A1/A696 access needs improving. Why? Edit: The answer, although unconvincing, is in the report.
The Western By-Pass really needs a Western By-Pass, but they need to start planning now to go triple level to seperate North/South and East/West traffic, like they've done at Silverlink.
3) When every airport like Newcastle has a direct link to every airport like Sao Paulo, a) Sao Paulo airport will have to be bigger than Sao Paulo, and b) Newcastle and Sao Paulo will both be underwater.
On point 3 I'm maybe being flippant but I'm making a relevant question: What is the limit to growth, both for worldwide air travel and for NCL? Because there has to be one.
On point 3 I'm maybe being flippant but I'm making a relevant question: What is the limit to growth, both for worldwide air travel and for NCL? Because there has to be one.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dubai and Sunderland
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 700m is a serious need! At the moment the runway stop end on Rw25 does not comply with the latest CAA restrictions NCL keeps it's figures by god father right's, as in the runway was built before new restrictions! Each time work is done to the runway they run the risk of the CAA turning round and reducing present runway figures! So the 700m wouldn't be a total win around 2-300m would be lost in the increase to the runway stop end of 25.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 1,061
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NE ENGLAND
Posts: 957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has always been a contingent of objectors around Seaton Burn who have had to be appeased with amended flight paths & any future extension would effectively lower the approach heights on 25 inbound's. To add to this you have further development within this "envelope" significantly nearer the existing threshold albeit "slightly" to the South side of 25 approach.
It seems extremely likely that any future planning would fail on this situation alone, even before one considers the construction logistics / cost etc.
This extension "fantasy" dates back to the 70's when perhaps many of you were not even born, there was a clear requirement at that time for a longer runway due to the operational performance restriction of the equipment being operated into NCL, particularly on the DC9 variants through to earlier A320's. At this time there were also significant numbers of the classic 707's etc in operation within the IT market, that fully loaded required eight to nine thousand feet to operate without compromise. Indeed where on the limited occasions that they did operate into NCL then on occasions all was not as well as appeared i.e. TWA / Jetsave etc. though many operators had success and provided a legacy long range equipment that became available through displacement.
There was a forceful debate to obtain an extension at this time indeed the price quoted in retrospect now appears ridiculously cheap, I believe it was £2.5 M whereas you would probably be talking of upwards of £200M in today's terms. There were a number of issues to be contended at that time, not helped by the fact that the airport did not own the land required, & of course the road itself which would require rerouting or a tunnel. To cap it all I don't believe that the Governments aviation policies were in any way helpful. As such the project "died", though seems to have been appended to every future development plan over the years, but then it would be !
I would suggest that any resurgence now is simply being used in a cynical way as an attempt to make the airport more attractive to a new purchaser.
In any event it ain't going to happen, even taking all above into account, we are now moving into a more green conscious age, where the government has already touched on the need by "2050" for a reduction in flights.............
All I can say is enjoy the dream, but please don't waste everyone's time by posting "what if" destinations / services.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Newcastle
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G-TAWC stuck out in PFO for TUI. Looks like 789 G-TUIM will operate a combined flight with LGW pax.
Would this be the first 789 into NCL (if it indeed comes here)? Normally always 788 for our LH programme IIRC!
Would this be the first 789 into NCL (if it indeed comes here)? Normally always 788 for our LH programme IIRC!
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: UK
Posts: 543
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You’re right though in that it isn’t scheduled to operate any routes from NCL, at least not in summer. I believe the 789 flights were mostly or only in winter when NCL sees relatively few l/h flights and things are a bit more irregular with regards to aircraft types.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Durham
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However running total against 2018 to date is down -18,911 ( 5,386,024 (2018) vs. 5,367,113 (2019) - * based on 2018 figures to end of year, and 2019 YTD.
Months comparisons so far below, then compared to rest of 2018, as on par to show running end of year -18,911 figure:
2018 vs 2019
January:284,016 vs 275,822
February:290,520 vs 284,349
March290,520 vs 284,349
April:405,703 vs 396,586
May:524,325 vs 531,734
remaining months compared like for like until actual figures are released to show performance YTD so far.
Last edited by VentureGo; 14th Jun 2019 at 22:58.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CAA stats for May should be out soon and it will be interesting to see the figures for comparison, route by route. The pax figures generally hold up well against an invariable decline in movements each month.