EGSS figures show 1404 passengers in March on 99 flights, how does this compare to the plan? 13.9% down on last year.
bb
Porrohman
17th April 2015 14:13
44% - 46% load factor depending on whether aircraft is configured with 31 or 32 seats (Loganair have both configurations - I'm not sure which is used on this route).
I think we all know thats never going to work/happen...
davidjohnson6
5th July 2015 09:35
Could someone explain what benefits would be achieved for DND with a wider runway ? I'd like to understand what exactly the airport wants to achieve (ie which aircraft types will be able to fly to DND which can't now) by doing this work.
Not saying it shouldn't happen - just think there should be more info on the scheme to allow debate on the topic
edi_local
5th July 2015 23:56
Personally I'm not sure. The runway is already suitable for the numerous private jets which use the airport and it has been able to take the odd charter on an Avro RJ.
Anything much larger than the Avro doesn't seem viable, especially as the terminal is so small. If they open up the runway to accept larger planes then the terminal will need upgrading too and it's alot to fund with no guarantee of a return.
Porrohman
7th July 2015 02:50
davidjohnson6; Could someone explain what benefits would be achieved for DND with a wider runway ? I'd like to understand what exactly the airport wants to achieve (ie which aircraft types will be able to fly to DND which can't now) by doing this work.
Not saying it shouldn't happen - just think there should be more info on the scheme to allow debate on the topic
It's not just a case of widening the runway. There are regulations that require specific distances between an active runway and aprons and this varies according to the type of aircraft. Then there are issues such as RFFS category (Rescue and Fire Fighting Services), PCNs of relevant parts of the runways, taxiways and aprons, ACNs, wingspan, undercarriage width etc.
Detailed technical info for DND is available on the NATS website via this link;
Dundee currently meets RFFS category 4 which is aircraft with fuselage length from 18m up to but not including 24m and a fuselage width up to 4m. RFFS categories 5 and 6 are available by prior arrangement. Cat 6 is aircraft with fuselage length from 28m up to but not including 39m with a fuselage width of up to 5m. Cat 6 would cover an A320 but not an A321. RFFS category is probably one of the easier aspects to upgrade if the economics justify the investment.
PCNs might be a bit more of an issue. The PCNs of the aprons and taxiways at Dundee are not clearly defined in terms of strength of subgrade, method of assessment etc. but the runway is PCN 27/F/D/Y/T. Taxiways A,B and the main apron are PCN 27 according to NATS data for Dundee. I'm guessing that they are probably PCN 27/F/D/Y/T but can't be certain. That would be enough for an Avro RJ85 or similar but not enough for an A319 or B737. For comparison LCY's runway has a PCN of PCN 30/R/C/Y/T. The C strength subgrade and the 30 strength top surface mean that LCY's runway is about 20% stronger than DND.
Runway length is another factor. According to the article, the runway at DND can't be extended. The existing runway is 1,400m x 30m. This is the same width as London City but 108m shorter. Even if the PCN and runway width were to be increased, an A319 or B737 would have little or no payload / range from such a short runway.
At the moment, I'd have thought that most aircraft that can operate from LCY could also operate from DND but with a payload / range penalty compared to LCY due to the shorter runway and weaker PCNs. The only reason I can think to widen the runway at DND would be for operating aircraft from A319 size upwards but, given current traffic demand, how could this be commercially viable especially given the significant payload / range restriction that would apply? In an earlier post in this topic, I calculated the payload / range of a B738 from DND using detailed performance data and charts from Boeing's website and concluded that, although it could take off in 1400m, it would have little or no payload / range.
There are plenty of other factors to take into account and which may impact on the suitability of DND for larger aircraft. CAP168 contains the official CAA regulations on the licencing of aerodromes. It is available via this link;
Porroh - many thanks for your knowledge - gives a much better idea of the situation.
Makes the business case for widening the runway sound weak and unlikely to deliver a reasonable return on investment...
Great news with the launch of the Amsterdam from Dundee. Is this going to be available as a codeshare with KLM to allow onward connections ?
CaptainDoony
25th February 2016 12:04
Operated by a Q400. Bit of a surprise choice for DND - would have thought the Dornier 328 would have been a better fit in between STN runs but we'll see...
Richard Taylor
25th February 2016 19:26
Great news for Dundee - hopefully will see good loads & yields.
