Edinburgh-3
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Beaumaris
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think he's referring to the fact that their existing services excluding LHR are not doing too well and that it appears unusual to add a new destination which may well dilute the passenger feed to them.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ought not really be diverting this thread towards Cardiff, but so far as Qatar are concerned; 1) they aren't a commercial operators in the sense that we understand it, they are the Qatari's globally "willy" that they enjoy waving. 2) there was a straight fight between BRS (a commercial company) and CWL (a state owned "willy" of the Welsh government). One could throw a limited amount of privately generated capital at wooing the airline; the other state money - and the state incentive proved more attractive.
On a level playing field logic would have given the route to BRS, but as OltonPete pointed out, it still would be an odd decision given the relative proximity of Bristol or Cardiff and their conurbations to London and Birmingham.
On a level playing field logic would have given the route to BRS, but as OltonPete pointed out, it still would be an odd decision given the relative proximity of Bristol or Cardiff and their conurbations to London and Birmingham.
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATNotts
Ought not really be diverting this thread towards Cardiff, but so far as Qatar are concerned; 1) they aren't a commercial operators in the sense that we understand it, they are the Qatari's globally "willy" that they enjoy waving. 2) there was a straight fight between BRS (a commercial company) and CWL (a state owned "willy" of the Welsh government). One could throw a limited amount of privately generated capital at wooing the airline; the other state money - and the state incentive proved more attractive.
On a level playing field logic would have given the route to BRS, but as OltonPete pointed out, it still would be an odd decision given the relative proximity of Bristol or Cardiff and their conurbations to London and Birmingham.
On a level playing field logic would have given the route to BRS, but as OltonPete pointed out, it still would be an odd decision given the relative proximity of Bristol or Cardiff and their conurbations to London and Birmingham.
they aren't a commercial operators in the sense that we understand it, they are the Qatari's globally "willy" that they enjoy waving.
Getting back to OltonPete's point - if your regional UK routes aren't doing well, why launch another one seems a fair point. No slur on CWL!
Anyway, to EDI...
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 58
Posts: 3,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qatar
Jerry123
As SWBKCB stated it was not meant to be a slur on Cardiff, the comment would have been the same if Bristol, Belfast, Glasgow or Newcastle had been chosen at this time and I what I meant to do was highlight the timing in light of the current political situation Qatar finds itself embroiled in, as bookings have dropped significantly.
I know it has been said time and time again that we don't know what goes on behind closed doors and we haven't got a clue as to yields but a shiny new 788 with only 24 business seats and load factors between 60 and 75% doesn't sound a recipe for success and you would have thought Qatar would have avoided any further forays into the UK regional market at the present time.
Although not directly stated by ATNotts but would any other airline still be operating this route from EDI & BHX (not counting AI or PK) in similar circumstances and looking to expand?
FQTLSteve - Spot on but of course only Cardiff or Bristol would have affected BHX or similarly if Glasgow or Newcastle had been chosen in competition with Edinburgh.
As this is the EDI thread and to get it back on track (my fault if went off) what is the feeling about the Norwegian Transatlantic operation as the September figures seem a bit low despite the fact that the main holiday period was well and truly over. Have I got these load factors correct, as FR24 indicates SWF was daily, PVD 34 rotations and 26 for BDL.
Newburgh (SWF) 7207....average 120....65%
Providence (PVD) 3254...average 96......51%
Windsor Locks (BDL) 2837....average 109...59%
As SWBKCB stated it was not meant to be a slur on Cardiff, the comment would have been the same if Bristol, Belfast, Glasgow or Newcastle had been chosen at this time and I what I meant to do was highlight the timing in light of the current political situation Qatar finds itself embroiled in, as bookings have dropped significantly.
I know it has been said time and time again that we don't know what goes on behind closed doors and we haven't got a clue as to yields but a shiny new 788 with only 24 business seats and load factors between 60 and 75% doesn't sound a recipe for success and you would have thought Qatar would have avoided any further forays into the UK regional market at the present time.
Although not directly stated by ATNotts but would any other airline still be operating this route from EDI & BHX (not counting AI or PK) in similar circumstances and looking to expand?
FQTLSteve - Spot on but of course only Cardiff or Bristol would have affected BHX or similarly if Glasgow or Newcastle had been chosen in competition with Edinburgh.
As this is the EDI thread and to get it back on track (my fault if went off) what is the feeling about the Norwegian Transatlantic operation as the September figures seem a bit low despite the fact that the main holiday period was well and truly over. Have I got these load factors correct, as FR24 indicates SWF was daily, PVD 34 rotations and 26 for BDL.
Newburgh (SWF) 7207....average 120....65%
Providence (PVD) 3254...average 96......51%
Windsor Locks (BDL) 2837....average 109...59%
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LV
Posts: 2,163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... mmm are they correct? Not great for a late summer month, no wonder theres been a double drop with Irish flight already!
Did wonder how these routes would fair into winter. Further adjustments to follow I suspect. Maybe a 737-7Max would have been better for capacity.
Did wonder how these routes would fair into winter. Further adjustments to follow I suspect. Maybe a 737-7Max would have been better for capacity.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: stockport
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just out of interest the Manchester flights had a B777 on many flights in summer 2016
which therefore had a lot more seats available so one explanation for the MAN drop also some pax would have connected to DUB from BHX/MAN which now has a non stop operation.
which therefore had a lot more seats available so one explanation for the MAN drop also some pax would have connected to DUB from BHX/MAN which now has a non stop operation.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 62
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, the Norwegian transatlantic flights are still restricted to 150 pax. If so, these load factors are not strictly correct.
The reason for the payload restriction is that the ETOPS-120 capable B73Hs don't have the range to carry a full pax load, especially westbound, and the B38Ms are not all ETOPS-120 capable yet, which means some of them need to take a longer routing over Greenland and Northern Canada.
Norwegian's transatlantic ops are being flown by a mix of aircraft with different capabilities and there are no advance guarantees of which aircraft will be available for which route so all flights have the payload restriction applied. On a day to day basis, if certain required equipment is unserviceable, ETOPS-120 aircraft will need to fly non-ETOPS routes.
When I looked last week, only two of the B38Ms (the first two to be delivered, EI-FYA and B) were flying ETOPS routings. The others were either flying non-ETOPS routings or were not being used on Transatlantic flights. I checked a seven day period for all six B38Ms so this didn't look like just a prevailing weather issue. There was a clear pattern.
Over the past seven days, one additional B38M (EI-FYE) has been flying ETOPS-120 routings most of the time.
Not all of Norwegian's B73Hs are ETOPS-120 capable. When a non-ETOPS B73H is used for a transatlantic flight, it is more likely to need to fuel stop. This happened last week, with one flight from EDI needing to stop at YUL.
Now that winter weather has arrived in northern Canada, Greenland and Iceland, non-ETOPS flights could be delayed or cancelled if the necessary diversion airports en route are unavailable.
I wonder whether Boeing is having to pay compensation to Norwegian. I presume the B38Ms were supposed to be ETOPS-120 capable by entry to service but engine problems late in the flight test programme delayed deliveries and appear to have delayed ETOPS-120 approvals of all six aircraft in the fleet. Three now appear to be operating ETOPS-120 routings.
Is it the case that individual airframes need to clock up a certain number of hours before ETOPS-120 ops can be carried out or is there another reason why individual B38Ms have not operated ETOPS-120 routings until quite some time after entry into service?
The reason for the payload restriction is that the ETOPS-120 capable B73Hs don't have the range to carry a full pax load, especially westbound, and the B38Ms are not all ETOPS-120 capable yet, which means some of them need to take a longer routing over Greenland and Northern Canada.
Norwegian's transatlantic ops are being flown by a mix of aircraft with different capabilities and there are no advance guarantees of which aircraft will be available for which route so all flights have the payload restriction applied. On a day to day basis, if certain required equipment is unserviceable, ETOPS-120 aircraft will need to fly non-ETOPS routes.
When I looked last week, only two of the B38Ms (the first two to be delivered, EI-FYA and B) were flying ETOPS routings. The others were either flying non-ETOPS routings or were not being used on Transatlantic flights. I checked a seven day period for all six B38Ms so this didn't look like just a prevailing weather issue. There was a clear pattern.
Over the past seven days, one additional B38M (EI-FYE) has been flying ETOPS-120 routings most of the time.
Not all of Norwegian's B73Hs are ETOPS-120 capable. When a non-ETOPS B73H is used for a transatlantic flight, it is more likely to need to fuel stop. This happened last week, with one flight from EDI needing to stop at YUL.
Now that winter weather has arrived in northern Canada, Greenland and Iceland, non-ETOPS flights could be delayed or cancelled if the necessary diversion airports en route are unavailable.
I wonder whether Boeing is having to pay compensation to Norwegian. I presume the B38Ms were supposed to be ETOPS-120 capable by entry to service but engine problems late in the flight test programme delayed deliveries and appear to have delayed ETOPS-120 approvals of all six aircraft in the fleet. Three now appear to be operating ETOPS-120 routings.
Is it the case that individual airframes need to clock up a certain number of hours before ETOPS-120 ops can be carried out or is there another reason why individual B38Ms have not operated ETOPS-120 routings until quite some time after entry into service?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Solihull
Age: 58
Posts: 3,235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Norwegian
Porrohman
Thank you for the excellent summary and again another example that things are not always as they seem.
It sounds a bit of a nightmare in one sense when you are bedding in new routes and new aircraft as well as the winter weather to contend with.
I just hope Primera are taking note as my local will be getting an unproven transatlantic aircraft from next May and hopefully some lessons to be leant although one is Boeing and the other Airbus but still a new venture.
Thank you for the excellent summary and again another example that things are not always as they seem.
It sounds a bit of a nightmare in one sense when you are bedding in new routes and new aircraft as well as the winter weather to contend with.
I just hope Primera are taking note as my local will be getting an unproven transatlantic aircraft from next May and hopefully some lessons to be leant although one is Boeing and the other Airbus but still a new venture.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Porroham
Firstly Norwegians 738 & 7M8 deployed on the Transatlantic are 180 minutes ETOPS not 120.
There have been a number of different issues over the last 10 days that have caused some to be non ETOPS compliant, from things like APU inop, odd Maintainance msgs no real pattern.
The limit in number of seats at introduction was around 155 this is now increased to around 175, however I have seen and flown numerous sorties with 189 ( full)
A number of additional NG are being upgraded to ETOPS spec as week speak.
There have been a number of different issues over the last 10 days that have caused some to be non ETOPS compliant, from things like APU inop, odd Maintainance msgs no real pattern.
The limit in number of seats at introduction was around 155 this is now increased to around 175, however I have seen and flown numerous sorties with 189 ( full)
A number of additional NG are being upgraded to ETOPS spec as week speak.
