sorry , i Meant to pose the 738 as a question,
so here goes , can a 738 fully loaded take off from blk, doing sun routes,if its the case then thomson should have no problems, and any reason why blk not coming up for winter 08 in tom broch/online?

The airport has tried on a number of occaisions to get additional charter capacity into BLK. The problem is, the airport is trying to grow a market that is shrinking and loosing the battle with Low cost. The merger of the big 4 into the big 2 is potentially a good thing for the tour op industry but it makes it harder for BLK as they will consoldate what they have and opening a new station when they are reducing the others is difficult.

The problem is thus, all the major operators have huge programmes out of MAN. Now, there is no doubt what so ever that BLK is prime charter operator market as the demographic practically spells charter, BUT ... the operators view is that they get them through MAN anyway so why bother moving? Then, with shrinknig LPL and moving it all back to MAN and consolodation at MAN it is very very tough for BLK to break into this market which is ultimately in decline.

I would like to think that one of the tour ops would see BLK as a competitive advantage but time will tell.

My final two points are, a fully loaded, fully fuelled B738 can not operate from BLK, but they can (and do) operate to the Canaries without too much of an issue. So, there is no performance issues.

Secondly, don;t knock the airport for lack of growth, the industry is tough and MAN has a stronghold on the NW - I am sure additional growth will materialise but it all takes time, and lots of it.

Even AB can operate a 737-800 from DTM to the canaries. Only, when there are strong headwinds a refuelling stop in SVQ is required, due to about 2 tons of fuel missing.

A 738 can operate to Canaries fully loaded with PAX and sufficient fuel (1 hour extra).

A 752 can operate fully laden also but with only about 5 1/2 hours fuel. I'm guessing this is due to the powerplants?

Obviously, this is weather permitting as every other route is!:}

thank you gareth for answering my question and more:)

Looking on OAG website it shows BLK-TFS for same timetable as the winter (2x weekly).

LS website unfortunately does not and it would not fit into the two aircraft to be based at the airport next summer (unless the airline are putting three in but currently only 2)

So, will we see TOM at blk next winter?

October 2007 Passenger figures
 

BLK-DUB 8299 71%
BLK-FAO 3295 70%
BLK-ALC 6496 76%
BLK-GRO 9601 85%
BLK-AGP 4388 74%
BLK-MJV 3358 71%
BLK-PMI 3925 75%
BLK-TFS 257 87% (only 1st flight)
BLK-IOM 1714

Best performing route: GRO 85% (as usual!)
Worst performing route: FAO 70%

Still to receive BFS.

Runway to be resurfaced - spring 2008.

Runway to be resurfaced - spring 2008.
 

Let's hope it's not by the same mick's that layed the apron extension:oh:

Rgds
The Moss:ok:

Looks like EMX and BE are fighting back against the M2 revolution at BLK. Both MAN and BLK are down (MAN more so) but compared to past months, MAN has significantly increased!

Blackpool down only 14 people (-0.8%) but there has been a significant increase in weekly flights. Noticed M2 now have hourly flights next year during the TT (10 flights per day)!

Looking at the CAA figures for Oct BLK is down 221 pax MAN is down 918 on 3 less daily flights ( each direction ) LBA is up 940 LPL is down 2202 so it looks as if the only gainer is LBA which probably explains why MAN and to a lesser extent BLK are down

Ian

Not according to IOM airport stats!

LGW:12306 (IOM) 12330 (CAA)
LCY: 5803 (IOM) 5772 (CAA)
LTN: 190 (IOM) 188 (CAA)
BHD: 2861 (IOM) 2783 (CAA)
BHX: 4148 (IOM) 4125 (CAA)
BLK: 1703 (IOM) 1713 (CAA)

That is just a sample of the differences between the IOM edition and CAA addition - remember, the CAA are only provisional and are often tampered with before being made 100% official.

MUFC_Fan
Those figures don`t tie up with the CAA figures for last year either 200 approx out ( higher than CAA) so who is correct?

Manchester -IOM they do agree ( only 10 different )

Ian

MUFC Fan

Your performance 'guess-timates' for the B752 vs B738 and what they can carry and for how far are pure bollocks.

The B752 can carry more, fly further and all off a shorter runway than the B738.

Ask anyone who's flown both.
:ok:

Isn't this what I said? I certainly know that the B752 can fly further, carry more etc. Just look at the size of the powerplants!

The 752 was a phenomenon in world aviation, still the leader in it's class and is capable of amazing stunts due to it's flexibilty and also due to the size of its powerplants.

How about BLK LGW by EZ/GBA?
 

I wonder if any of the GBA slots at Gatwick now owned by EasyJet might be made available for BLK LGW? They would get a ton of positive publicity and they would stick 2 fingers up at FR if they reopened a London route.

Don't bother with tue/wed thur and concentrate on fri/sat/sun/mon, an A19 would be full every time.

How about it Stelios? It doesn't look like LS are going to use any of their NCL LGW flights for BLK instead...and it would be great to see a couple of EasyJet routes from Blackpool...

MUFC Fan

You stated that a B752 could only carry 5 1/2 hours of fuel from BLK's runway. THAT is what I was disputing.

:ugh:
MUFC Fan, stick to your interesting and informative pax stats, your obvious forte. Don't be taken in by the size of anyones powerplants:sad:
Rgds
The Moss:ok:

***attention All Blk-lon Wisher!***

Visit Blackpool International Website And Fill In The Form On The Left Hand Side!;)

The New Ceo Seems To Be Getting The Airport Moving!

Airports On Offer Seem To Be Ltn, Stn, Lgw And Lcy.

Come On Ba Or Ezy!:d:d