Flybe - LCY & IOM

[ALLMCC]

Does anyone know what the future holds for Flybe at LCY & IOM - with the Q300s due to depart in the near future and the rumoured difficulties with Q400 performance into LCY, does this suggest that the last remaining route to BHD via IOM is in doubt?

Other threads in the past have rumoured that Flybe were talking to other airlines to take over the route - VLM was mentioned as they took over the Jersey route earlier in the year - is this likely to come to fruition? If VLM were interested, would they not be more likely to link BHD via LPL to connect with the existing LCY - LPL route. If this happened, then the only IOM service left would be the once daily BHX.

Any news would be appreciated.

[er82]

From what I've heard there are still plans to take the Q400 into LCY. Don't know how true that is, and whether the crews will be happy or not. Remains to be seen!

[brabazon]

What's the issue with the Q400 at LCY, according to the airport's consultative committee's website it was approved in 2001:

http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/index.html#dash8

[EGAC_Ramper]

ALLMCC you say it would leave only the "once daily BHX" how do you mean? There is no BHX flight that stop's over at the IOM,it flies direct BHD-BHX.The only service to IOM are either FlyBE BHD-IOM-LCY or the FlyKeen service BHD-IOM-BLK.:confused:


Regards

[JobsaGoodun]

EGAC Ramper, I think ALLMCC is talking about the daily direct BHXIOM serive that Flybe has been running for the past 12mths now. Withdrawal of the LCY service would result in only the BHXIOM service being left.

[flybe.com]

ALLMCC - A couple of 300s have been retained for the forseeable future, probably whilst the future of our LCY ops is decided, I know no more than that. There are certainly no performance issues with the 400s in or out of LCY, but I believe parking is a bit of a problem though.

[EGAC_Ramper]

EGAC Ramper, I think ALLMCC is talking about the daily direct BHXIOM serive that Flybe has been running for the past 12mths now. Withdrawal of the LCY service would result in only the BHXIOM service being left

Ah I just thought we was on about the Belfast City service,my bad!!;)


Regards

[AlanM]

DLH used to have the Q400 in there a while back.

From an ATC point of view into LCY:

When landing on 10, they have to go to the far end turning area to do a 180 as it is too big to spin around on the runway.

(after a DLH took out a runway edge light!!!)

We therefore have to put traffic - an extra mile behind the Q400's.

Also - they cannot taxi on to stand, they need to be pushed back. (Causing a bit of extra hassle for the ground controller) :)

[MaxProp]

A flybe Q400 was trialled into LCY on the 31 Oct 03. There were no problems: the ac cannot taxi onto one stand in the usual manner but can execute the 'thru one onto another' tactic.

Otherwise, as previously stated, it is a pushback.

[WHBM]

I have staff who made use of both IOM and Jersey routes (but sorry, FlyBe, the project is over now) and they say loads were OK on Jersey, a bit thin on IOM. The IOM route must be expensive to operate now as the aircraft effectively positions from Belfast. And FlyBe don't have a significant marketing presence at either end. None of this bodes well.

When FlyBe operated direct from LCY to Belfast I used it but numbers were particularly thin, often down to single figures. The big FlyBe push of a few years ago at LCY looks over, their attention is elsewhere now.

[Smokie]

I belive that the SFSO is keen to spearhead the new operation into LCY, after his Q400 conversion to type in the not too distant future.
He is very enthusiastic and likes a challenge.:ok:

[flybe.com]

I hope not!!!

Those who are new to the 400 should certainly not be allowed to operate into LCY until sufficient experience has been gained, irrespective of his/her position and past experience. Sending such pilots in there would be a recipe for disaster.

[A Nonny Mouse]

"Also - they cannot taxi on to stand, they need to be pushed back. (Causing a bit of extra hassle for the ground controller) "

Since when have we had a ground controller at City? Must plug in when I am on my breaks:D GMC is for girls and Heathrow controllers (who I am told need 2)

The DLH 400s never gave much grief apart from when they ran over the runway entry point sign at 'B' and got stuck on the runway. They didn't always go to the end of the runway on 10, depended on the crew.

Never saw anything close to a tail strike (unlike BA RJ100s - where I have witnessed 2).:p

[Bright-Ling]

"a nonny nonny..."

BUT you said

The big headache with the Q400 is parking, and if our peak morning hours filled up with them the current max runway utilisation of 32 per hour would dry up due to the taxiway being blocked

On this thread! (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140862&perpage=15&pagenumber=1)

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

No GMC - how do you cope with 1300metres of narrow black stuff and 2 massive taxiways!?!

"One of the hardest towers in NATS" I was told by someone who works there. He really is a comedian...... :)

[A Nonny Mouse]

We do manage 32 per hour with one frequency and a hefty backtrack with only 10 main stands. Divide the movements at other large airports (including Holy Heathrow) by the number of frequencies serving those movements ;)

Also we manage frequency occupation of over 80% when busy due to only having one frequency for everything (again higher than any other UK airport).

Having said that, its probably down to the amount of mistakes us thick people make and have to keep correcting ourselves:ok:

We will never, of course, be as good as any other tower people in the UK as we are but a little runway bolted onto an old dock. We are all of course rejects who could not make it anywhere else.

:ouch:

Back to the topic. Parking isn't ideal, but being the most s**t hot controllers on this planet, as always, we make it work!!!:D

[Bright-Ling]

32 per hour!?! WOW!

That is really impressive.... when you consider the radar girls do LCY and BIG and Battersea and all the transits OFTEN band boxed with Heathrow and giving a RIS to traffic at Reading, Southend and Tonbridge at the same time.

Well done you. :)

(P.S. I was flying around the Lea Valley the other day when some buffoon kept saying "correction.....errrr......confirm" in EVERY transmission. Is he a trainee?)

Haven't been down there for years - is it still full of Brummie controllers??

[AlanM]

Anyway - enough of all that and back to the topic.

Are the 400's definitely about to return to London Docklands International?

Flybe.com

Why would Sending such pilots in there would be a recipe for disaster ??

Other operators come in without any problems (inc bizjests etc) - or is the 400 a particularly tricky beast?

Cheers

[flybe.com]

AlanM - In comparison to the 146, the 400's landing qualities are not the best in the world, and the unforgiving undercarriage causes many post-landing complaints from those in the back, pax and cabin crew alike. The characteristics of power lever movement vs power change down near the flight idle position is something which needs experience to become familiar with. Less than half a centimetre movement of the levers near this position can mean the difference between a perfect flare and dropping like a stone because of those huge props, this in turn can lead to excessive pulling back on the stick to try and arrest a high rate of descent, and hey presto - tailstrike! as has happened with a previous operator.

When I said 'such pilots' above, I meant those that are new to type and have not become familiar these characteristics. Landing flap settings (although LCY will be full flap) and landing weights also have a huge effect on how it handles. When you've tamed it, it's fine, but it takes time, therefore new to type pilots should not be sent into LCY.

For a turboprop, it's an awesome machine in terms of performance, but it can bite.

[AlanM]

I see - thanks for the explanation!

[Smokie]

I'm sure he will take it all in his stride.:D