Prestwick-2

[TRN1K]

Originally Posted by billyg

Wishful thinking on your part. With the forthcoming expansion of GLA towards the river there will be new maintenance and cargo space created. GLA representatives have already been talking to Cargolux earlier this year with a view to moving their services once the work is complete in 2019 !

What a load of nonsense!

[PIK3141]

On prevailing Westerlies PIK therefore as 630 metres more LDA. Says all that needs to be said.

[Rob Royston]

Originally Posted by willy wombat

Landing distance is measured from the threshold not the aiming point and assumes aircraft crosses the threshold at 50 feet

Thanks for the correction. I was not sure where it was measured from so I noted what I was using.

That leaves GLA 23, which has a displaced threshold, with about 7,500ft. The Boeing tables for landing a fully laden 747 8F in wet conditions require from 8000ft to 8800ft depending on flap setting and how much fuel is left.

Edinburgh has displaced thresholds at both ends so the landing distance is 7500ft from both directions.

[NorthSouth]

Rob Royston:
You're not reading the posts. See the official LDA figures at post #2581 above. GLA 23 is 2356m (7730ft). GLA 05 is 2661m (8731ft).
EDI LDAs are 2344m (7691ft) and 2347m (7701ft)

Quoting particular figures for an aircraft's landing performance is fraught with difficulty. The figures will also alter significantly depending on wind, air pressure and temperature.

[Rob Royston]

North South, I am merely questioning why an air freight company would be interested in moving to an airport where they could only expect to land on a typical wet Scottish day, on the predominantly downwind runway. This was posted on the previous page.

[CabinCrewe]

I would be interested to know how many cargo services to and from PIK are at maximum TOW or landing weight and whether that is even relevant. Aren't most services "relatively" short hops across the Atlantic with nowhere near maximum fuel capacity/weight.

[willy wombat]

This is a strange discussion. Freight doesn't tend to be too fussy about where it flies from or to. These 747 services could as easily transfer to, for example, Manchester.

[Rob Royston]

Originally Posted by CabinCrewe

Aren't most services "relatively" short hops across the Atlantic with nowhere near maximum fuel capacity/weight.

Well, Los Angeles is a little over the max range for a full payload, but Houston and Seattle could work with the full load. The Boeing chart calls for an LDA of 8000ft, in wet conditions, for the Max Zero Fuel Weight, so any fuel weight being carried would add to that distance.

I cannot understand why Cargolux would be in discussions with GLA when their landing runway length into the prevailing wind will lead to further load shedding.

[WHBM]

Originally Posted by CabinCrewe

I would be interested to know how many cargo services to and from PIK are at maximum TOW or landing weight and whether that is even relevant. Aren't most services "relatively" short hops across the Atlantic with nowhere near maximum fuel capacity/weight.

Cargo flights are different to passenger, and even short hops may have the aircraft at MTOW, or maximum that can be achieved for the characteristics of the airports etc. Fuel load will be less, but the weight is taken up by additional cargo load.

Passenger flights fill up when the seats are all taken. If you have 300 seats, that's it. Cargo however can be as much as you can get in up to your MTOW. Much air cargo will "bulk out", that is you reach maximum weight before the volume is physically full. Only a few operations, with lightweight loads such as FedEx mail, etc, or fresh flowers, will "cube out", that is the cubic capacity is stuffed full before you reach MTOW. Getting the balance right is a key commercial aspect. One of the main reasons why FedEx and UPS got into commercial cargo, having started with mail items, was to get the optimum efficiency of the aircraft between weight and volume.

Commercial demand is different too. A shipper may not ask "Can you take 20 tons of fresh seafood", but the other way round "How many tons can you take".

[Navpi]

Originally Posted by willy wombat

This is a strange discussion. Freight doesn't tend to be too fussy about where it flies from or to. These 747 services could as easily transfer to, for example, Manchester.

Manchester doesn't accept pure cargo due I presume slots.

[billyg]

Originally Posted by TRN1K

What a load of nonsense!

[willy wombat]

MAN was just an example - could have said EMA and they sure accept pure freighters

[canberra97]

Originally Posted by Navpi

Manchester doesn't accept pure cargo due I presume slots.

Is that really the case regarding MAN?

[Skipness One Echo]

It's due to the redevelopment work causing stands to be at a premium.

[smith]

If PIK can hold tight for say the next 10 or 15 years runway capacity at GLA and EDI will reach saturation and PIK will be the only available option in the central belt.

[Skipness One Echo]

On the main pier, there are/were two glass rooms on top of the structure. The one nearest the runway is now boarded up. What were they used for? Always wondered....

Also has the Polar B747 been scrapped yet?

[VickersVicount]

Same as the mini control tower on top of the middle of the central 'BA' (then domestic) pier at GLA

[Refuellerman]

Global trek are getting some serious us military atm in bfs, is it stuff that was to go to pik or snn?

[ScotsSLF]

Originally Posted by Refuellerman

Global trek are getting some serious us military atm in bfs, is it stuff that was to go to pik or snn?

PIK is also getting some serious US military stuff at the moment too. 9 C130s, 3 C17s and a C12 over the weekend

[TRN1K]

Originally Posted by Refuellerman

Global trek are getting some serious us military atm in bfs, is it stuff that was to go to pik or snn?

Mixture of both really.Navy stuff out of SNN and some PIK customers.


As the previous post sais PIK still getting good stuff, busy weekend for US MIL. 10 hercs 3 17's and a C12 in less than 2 days isn't bad going