Carlisle-2
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: uk
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Galway ROI
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IF you recall Lcy started with Draconian restrictions, but as traffic and demand grew...
I don't see Planning depts objecting to flights bringing inward tourists or siding the local economy, besides isn't part of the usable strip painted out like , Oban?.
Also it's still longer than Vagar and that takes A319/A320 neo..
Suffers horrific weather , but before the extension, it was only 1299m , there are videos of smaller 737's and DC9 I think on you tube .
So there must be hope for CAX?
I don't see Planning depts objecting to flights bringing inward tourists or siding the local economy,
Before we get too carried away, anybody got an example of when this model (regional airliner from small UK regional airport to the Med) has been successful?
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 53
Posts: 1,422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
de minimus non curat lex
Probably starting in the 1970s, summer schedules to the Isle of Man with DANAIR 748s, and Jersey with a Viscount.
A popular weekend seasonal service.
I see that ATC are still in the old VCR on the north side.
Are there any plans to transfer to the newly built facility on the south side ?
A popular weekend seasonal service.
I see that ATC are still in the old VCR on the north side.
Are there any plans to transfer to the newly built facility on the south side ?
de minimus non curat lex
A fundamental flaw demonstrating a total lack of understanding. Heads would undoubtedly have rolled?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given Embraer E170/175 etc and then the short take off performance of the A220, all in the samev' size range of the BAE146 / Rj100.
IF you recall Lcy started with Draconian restrictions, but as traffic and demand grew...
I don't see Planning depts objecting to flights bringing inward tourists or siding the local economy, besides isn't part of the usable strip painted out like , Oban?.
Also it's still longer than Vagar and that takes A319/A320 neo..
Suffers horrific weather , but before the extension, it was only 1299m , there are videos of smaller 737's and DC9 I think on you tube .
So there must be hope for CAX?
IF you recall Lcy started with Draconian restrictions, but as traffic and demand grew...
I don't see Planning depts objecting to flights bringing inward tourists or siding the local economy, besides isn't part of the usable strip painted out like , Oban?.
Also it's still longer than Vagar and that takes A319/A320 neo..
Suffers horrific weather , but before the extension, it was only 1299m , there are videos of smaller 737's and DC9 I think on you tube .
So there must be hope for CAX?
The far bigger challenge would be the fare per seat which would have to be charged to make a profit on that size of aircraft on such a long sector, and the unfavourable comparisons it would draw with the fares on offer from A320/737 LCCs flying from bigger airports.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SWBKCB said:
Could you post a link to this planning constraint, as I couldn't find it?
An EMB-145 could probably do the Med, Largest a/c is restricted to Bae.146 size by planning conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if there is no current 'planning condition' (as you said originally), I expect that the media item may have been referring to the situation then imposed by the CAA with a restriction on the OLD runway, which off the top of my head was max size in the region of 12-13 Tonnes for commercial operations. But of course with the newly laid, and compliant runway, this will no longer apply, so larger aircraft can use CAX commercially.
Whether the terminal is up to it is a different question, but I do not see why the odd larger charter or two, or occasional diversion could not be coped with as it is, one at a time, and subject to the opening hours, IAPs etc.
Whether the terminal is up to it is a different question, but I do not see why the odd larger charter or two, or occasional diversion could not be coped with as it is, one at a time, and subject to the opening hours, IAPs etc.
No - don't think it was an operational constraint, I'm sure it was a planning condition following one of the many legal challenges to the re-development. I suppose it may have been overturned at some point, but given the level of local opposition, I'd be surprised if it's gone unreported.