interesting what was said in the previous comment.. i cannot remember a prestwick flight going with less than 100 on it each day, most of the time it was hitting the 150/160 figure easily.. As for Liverpool, it was quite often to see it come in with only 20 on it at 8am or so each morning. It was only ever completely full when there was a footie match there, or in Manchester (same for Prestwick, but it was still always busy).

Have I missed something?

EI BUD
 

I think EI BUD is right about the runway extension, I can't see BHD having agreed to upgrade 04 to an ILS this year only to rip up for a longer runway.

The interesting time will come when bmibaby V.2 look to replace their classic fleet, if they went down the NG route they'll be in the same boat that FR were in, an Airbus solution might be better.

Flying officer Kite,

The PIK route was initially daily and the total pax in any month was in or around the 5500 mark, it was then increased for one season to x2 daily and the numbers went up to about 7500, this can be verified more precisely at CAA website.

Assuming these numbers that would have meant load factors of around 47% and 32% respectively on those flights.

Dont know the loads for Liverpool, but the level of passengers was pretty impressive, and would have made LPL one of the top routes x BHD when it went to x3 daiyl on FR.

EI-BUD

v2? Why would anyone bother? :ugh:

FR derate their engines hence why they couldn't fill the Boeings on the way out.

I seem to remember Baby rerating their engines to increase their performance specifically for BHD operations.

I'm sure a fully rated 73 engine could handle the City just fine.

No doubt this will precipitate the thread being closed:hmm:

However the few times I travelled to PIK ( very useful for Scottish Air traffic control centre) it was virtually empty. I for one miss it.

Hope that comment doesn't upset our self appointed moderator.:hmm:

RedED

The FR machines had 26k thrust allowable to them this could be de-rated by using a fixed de-rate to 24k or 22k with further reduction through using assumed temperature. These processes however are down to the operating crew taking into consideration the performance. It was not the case thye had 26k engines permanently de-rated to 24k from the factory.The 800 suffered at BHD with it either carrying full load but not enough fuel for European destinations or carrying the fuel but suffering a penalty with regards to passengers.

Regards

EGAC Ramper that was my understanding re FR i don't think the short field performance on the NG as delivered to FR @26K is as good as the classic at 22K with full pax load

The short field t/o performance on a 22k 300 is better out of bhd than an 800. But it doesn't have the legs of an 800 at altitude. Bhd is basically unsuitable for the NG or classic on long med destinations. Airbus I have no idea.

EI-BUD, 5500 a month, works out at an average of 177 a day/flight (based on a 31 day month), which is how i remember the '1437' being most of the time, and with a 189 seater thats alot more than 47% Or are those figures BHD-PIK and PIK-BHD combined??

Also, Inkjet, have the airport said 04 is getting an ILS? I thought there were too many obstructions for one to work properly?? great stuff if its true though :)

Yes the 5500 and 7500 figures include total in both directions, this is how the CAA handle the figures. 177 per flight is most unlikely as my info is that restrictions on Ryanair's 738 at Belfast City was max of 169 on outbound and 149 on the inbound. So I am not sure any flight would ever have had more than 169.

EI-BUD

Not only is 04 to get an ILS, the 'HB' is finally going to be replaced/fixed sometime this summer before the 22 ILS is replaced late summer.

Autumn approaches on 22 with a NDB nice!!

interesting, though i stand by my position that i never saw a quiet Prestwick flight.. ah well :)

As for the figure of limiting the number of seats available for use, i had heard that rumour too, but it wasnt true. Ryanair flights were sometimes (not very often mind) completely full or even overbooked by one or two

Yes, but why would you need to restrict capacity on what was surely the shortest sector in the network?

As for overbooking, really? I thought MOL's claim always was 'read my lips, no overbooking'. This surprises me, especially during the 1p flight days, as you should always be guaranteed a few no-shows, but apparently that is the policy. Only reported case I've read of Ryanair overbooking was when a family gave wrong age for infant, so they needed an extra seat, and instead of offloading the family (4 seats), they forced a solo traveller off instead - naturally traveller wasn't too happy!

Indeed, many airlines say it doesnt happen, and for the likes of Ryanair it is very rare, but it has happened. When checking the Ryanair systems ive seen 192 booked on a flight before, same for many other airlines.

Interesting that in days when more airfields are getting rid of NDBs that 'HB' is getting a new lease of life.. Is there any benefits to using one when there are soon to be ILS's on both ends of the runway? Or is it more for overflying the field, training etc?

Flying officer kite
 

The HB needs to be operational whilst the ILS is down other wise your left with a radar vector to a visual approach and it's associated minima in other words GO TO BFS

The HB will allow an NDB approach which the crews will love and no doubt greater spacing on the approach ie lots of time in the MAGEE hold

though hasnt HB been out of action for quite some time?? I remember a long time ago a NDB was potentially going to end up at Ards, but that never came to be. Is the one at Enniskillen (EKN) working these days?

It can happen i guess, but in the (far too) many years working with various airports I can only recall one incident/day when an ILS was u/s.. but i guess a backup device is always handy

F O Kite
 

But in this case the ILS will be down for some time intentionally and its the HB or nothing!

Quite correct as NATS have the engineering contract at BHD :ok: