LONDON CITY - 2

[WHBM]

Continuation of: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=195147&page=15


There's quite a lot of chat elsewhere about the sale of BAConnect to FlyBe but we can think about the situation at LCY, where BA are retaining the operation, apparently with a residual Avro RJ fleet based in Edinburgh.

BA will have to get their fleet numbers just right which will make expansion/contraction difficult because there will be no other work for them.

Will they replace the Avros ? They are some of the newest around so no need to for several years yet.

Others are saying that BA would order A318s but as I understand it although it fits on the runway it's a nuisance on the stands, especially if several were in at once.

BA say they will expand at LCY but how can they ? There's no space left between 0800-0900 and any LCY route that doesn't operate at these times (eg BA to Milan) is always a poor performer.

[turnipgreen]

Starting 15DEC06, there will be two weekly flights to Sion by "AlpWings", a new Swiss airline operating an ERJ135. Never heard of the outfit - they have a .com website (not sure if I am allowed to provide a link here).
Flight times are FrSu Sion 1500 - 1615 LCY 1645 - 1800 Sion
On Saturday, there will be two flights to/from LGW, btw.
Does the ERJ135 need modifiications to be able to operate into LCY ? If so, the only suitable ERJ135s would be the two Luxair examples and the former Jetmagic bird.

what's the source of this info? A friend of mine that works at LCY says he doesnt know anything about these guys starting.

[turnipgreen]

BA say they will expand at LCY but how can they ? There's no space left between 0800-0900 and any LCY route that doesn't operate at these times (eg BA to Milan) is always a poor performer.[/QUOTE]

Interesting times for LCY and BA. I know the airport has plans to build more stands over the dock which has planning permission. I guess this is a decision for the new owners? I would have thought this would take some months to build but it would allow BA and others to continue to expand. The airports master plan on their web site shows how they can expand.

[fredtheanorak]

Would I be right in thinking that FlyBaboo did charter flights to Sion last winter?

Yep they did a winter Saturday season. Sion's good for 3 valleys and ski areas but miles from anywhere as a year round service

[cityjet]

I think VLM have the most slots, Cityjet have a quite a few aswell! Watch this space.

Frank

[Charlie Roy]

Sion's good for 3 valleys and ski areas but miles from anywhere as a year round service

Crans-Montana is just up the road (or rather mountain side) from Sion and has some of the best golf resorts in the world in Summer :cool:

[virginblue]

what's the source of this info? A friend of mine that works at LCY says he doesnt know anything about these guys starting.

I don't think that I am allowed to post a link. Just google the destinations and the airline's name, and their website pops up.

It has also been in the Travel Guardian in October:

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/activities/wintersports/story/0,,1890062,00.html

[Evileyes]

Two posts moved to: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251119 and merged with the already existing thread.

[WHBM]

I know the airport has plans to build more stands over the dock which has planning permission. I guess this is a decision for the new owners? I would have thought this would take some months to build but it would allow BA and others to continue to expand.
I am afraid the "some months" to build the extension is more like "some years".

I am also afraid to advise, from a professional point, that you don't get a lot of extra aircraft parking space built out over a dock for each £100 million spent. And that's what this sort of work costs. LCY's problem, unlike say Heathrow, is that there is only the demand for this extra capacity for one hour in the morning and one in the evening, 5 days a week. Otherwise there's enough space for more services already. So these extra costs would have to be covered by the fees from 10 movements a week for each stand, and that just doesn't add up.

[Capt. Tango]

I hear that ScotAirways have reduced services from LCY and park a couple of Dornier's there.
That must cause LCY problems with parking?

[virginblue]

I think there is one that is being towed over to the GAT every morning. That's about it.

[turnipgreen]

I have had a look at the LCY timetable (ok sad thing to do i know!!) They have peaks of 2-3 hours in the morning and more like 3-4 in the evening as well as a lunchtime peak. Plus they seem to have 16 flights/day to EDI and 21 to AMS so those off peak periods are filling up! I have heard quoted somewhere that the stands would take 12-18 months to build so not available now but not that far away. I do agree with the comment about BA and managing their aircraft, their demand for slots and LCY's ability to provide slots. Will be a tricky time but is more a phasing issue than anything else?

[virginblue]

True, but BA will need to find work for their 10 RJ100s in April 2007, not in late 2008.

[AlanM]

We had delays again yesterday evening due to congestion on the ground and lack of stands. The morning rush does seem quite so manic for us on radar.

The evening rush is now busier and more drawn out than the past.

[WHBM]

I have heard quoted somewhere that the stands would take 12-18 months to build so not available now but not that far away
Afraid the timespan will be pretty long on these new stands/parking areas. It's not a nice greenfield site. Among other issues on this job in particular :

The need to do a detailed survey of the dock bottom and ground beneath so the contractors understand what they are digging down into. This will need a barge on site for a month or so (such will be the first indication of things going ahead). Until you do this nobody can be reasonably sure how much the works will cost and the new investors will be unable to give a go-ahead.

Sweeping the dock bottom where the works will take place for unexploded WW2 bombs. I'm not joking here, just look at how many have been found nearby, just in recent years, there were more dropped on the Royal Docks than anywhere else in Britain. I bet there are still a dozen or more in each dock.

The need to source a low-rise piling rig. Not common but there are a few available. You need one of these so you don't impinge on the glidescope (anyone sufficiently knowledgeable about the requirements to state how high you can go at this location without impacting aircraft movements ?).

Difficulty of access to the site, getting materials etc in. This one will be a pig for the contractor. You could barge materials up the dock but that again adds to time taken and greatly to cost as you have to double-handle everything.

You could ask Mowlem, who built the original airport, but the have disappeared from the construction scene now. When they did the original airport it was of course a vacant site and they could do what they want.

Finally, regarding the "12 to 18 months" quotes, never trust construction estimates that have a 50% margin :)

[JC Ops]

I think when they built the 28 hold they did a survey of the whole dock.

I remember the surveying boat being in the dock for a long time working its way up and down the whole stretch.

JC Ops :ok:

[justanotherstat]

I hear that ScotAirways have reduced services from LCY and park a couple of Dornier's there.
That must cause LCY problems with parking?
Scotairways have had aircraft based at LCY for at least 3 years. We have recently reduced some middle of the day schedules which apparently were non profit sectors, this has increased the number of A/C parked at city during the day but normally only two parked overnight which is standard for the base.
Does anyone know about rumours of the remaining city schedule at BAConnect being backed by RBS? Should this be true one would assume they would only contract one airline only. ie SA would lose their share of the business.:confused:

[turnipgreen]

Re stands - i believe from memory (well friends memory!) that the whole dock was surveyed so that should speed up things. So summer 08 could eb a possibility? But yes, builders can take longer than they say! Re scotairways, I use them and BA (I dont work for RBS!) it's the choice of times that help me so i use whoever works best for my own schedule. Looking at the CAA stats, Scot seem to eb doing ok and they always seem to charge me lots of £££'s to travel with them!
I read somewhere that the EU approval for the new owners is due 23 November so they will have the keys (so to speak) soon after.

[WHBM]

Does anyone know about rumours of the remaining city schedule at BAConnect being backed by RBS? Should this be true one would assume they would only contract one airline only. ie SA would lose their share of the business.:confused:
Yes, RBS have a corporate agreement with BA for air travel. Apparently a particular feature is there are a guaranteed number of seats per year on the BA EDI-LCY service for them at a fixed price, and so all their travel on this route goes this way.

BA can of course do a very wideranging agreement with businesses like this, this route being only one small part of the whole, which Scot Airways cannot match. As for me, whenever I go up to Edinburgh it is Scot every time. I like their style. I remember phoning their res centre in Dundee one evening when I noticed my secretary had booked me on the 7.30 am instead of the 7.30 pm the next day. No trouble, glad to help, "oh don't worry sir this one happens all the time". Afraid you do not get that from BA any longer.

[cityjet]

It could be possible for Cityjet/Air France to look into a service like this:

Possible rotatios:
CDG-EDI-LCY-CDG

ORY-LCY-EDI-ORY

CDG-EDI-LCY (o/n)
LCY-EDI-CDG

ORY-LCY-EDI (o/n)
EDI-LCY-ORY

DUB-LCY-CDG
CDG-LCY-EDI (o/n)
EDI-CDG

DUB-LCY-DUB
DUB-LCY EDI (o/n)
EDI-LCY-CDG

We already operate in an out of LCY to and from DUB / ORY / CDG
It could be feasible to join a EDI somewhere in our network.
LCY could be our next base but i guess it will be in talks for a long time. Plus dont forget that the big bosses at AF would have a lot to say. I'm sure we are not really allowed to have our own routes we have to operate as AF.

How long with BA last on the EDI / LCY route after the merger?

Thanks

Frank

[moku]

City Jet,

Well with WW saying that the LCY ops are a strategic part of the BA group I'd expect them to be around until at least 2008 when the RJ leases start expiring. Then who knows...........ERJ or A3.. He has so far ruled out the A318.

[midweeksaint]

Moku
Why do BA need to replace the RJ100s? Why not just extend the leases?

[virginblue]

In this month's Airliner World there is an intereting portrait of VLM Airlines. A few quotes:

- further expansion will concentrate on non-LCY routes as the airport has reached saturation. Routes under evaluation from ANR, RTM, BRU and LUX.

- over the next 12 month, VLM will trial a new, larger aircraft under wet-lease contract on a single route. Possible aircraft mentioned are a E170, a Q400 or an Avro RJ.

- Fokker 50s to stay for at least five years. Fleet renewal either by keeping the Fokker 50s over 2010 and adding a larger aircraft type or by introducing a single family concept in the 50-80 seat range.

- CEO quoted praising the Q400 and the ATR42/72, while lamenting that the ATR72 is not yet certified for LCY. Airbus A318 already ruled out. Concerns about second hand Avro RJs because of reliability issues.

[turnipgreen]

I hear on the grapevine that after some uncertainty regarding slots at Linate, the AirOne Milan service is due to start on Monday. Certainly good for me and I will be a user and I would have thought good for alot in teh city and canary wharf.

[turnipgreen]

I see that EU approval has been given for the AIG buy out of LCY. I assume this means the new owners will get the keys now and the airport can start developing?

[WHBM]

Just a simple question, but whatever business is it of the EU who the owner of any airport is ? There were no monopoly ownership issues.

[Skipness One Echo]

Doubt it. ScotAirways never made money and then BA tried and made even less. That's why they shifted the operation to Edinburgh.

[Buster the Bear]

Rumour has it, over 350 movements in one day last week!

[virginblue]

OTOH, British Airways needs to find some work for their 10 RJ100s inherited from BACON and some domestic runs seem to be a sensible approach. With BA's growing presence at LCY and the increasing number of domestic destinations from the airport, it might be worth another try. After all, what other destinations are there that could keep the RJ100s busy ? Maybe VIE or something like HEL, WAW or PRG, but the rest is already well covered by the competition.

[turnipgreen]

Just a simple question, but whatever business is it of the EU who the owner of any airport is ? There were no monopoly ownership issues.

Now don't quote me on this but I believe it's due to GE's interest in Aircraft leasing and engine making? Aviation in the broard sense and therefore automatically triggered a referral.

[AlanM]

Rumour has it, over 350 movements in one day last week!

353 on Thursday 23rd November. Which for an airport only open 14hrs or so per day is pretty good (and averages out at 25 or so per hour) This was an increase of 16 on the previous record.

I now also understand that VLM have now topped 50 flights per day in/out of LCY (so 100 movements for 1 airline!)

[good egg]

AlanM

Not bad indeed....believe the weekly movement total for London City was more than that for Luton...might need to park a few in the docks shortly!

[tom de luxe]

I assume this means the new owners will get the keys now and the airport can start developing?
Don't forget that the best part of those GBP 750M is debt. The new owners are likely to require LCY to make substantial cash pronto. I'd be surprised if revenue-enhancing and cost-cutting measures were not to be introduced in a very near future. And I'm afraid LCY will go down the BAA route, changing its focus from "customers first (and we wouldn't mind making some profit, mind you)" to "profits first so we can service our debt (there are no other airports nearby, so why bother with customers)".
:(

[WHBM]

LCY has been in BAA mode for a while. The car park charges seem to have gone up at 25% per annum cumulative for the last several years.

[turnipgreen]

Don't forget that the best part of those GBP 750M is debt. The new owners are likely to require LCY to make substantial cash pronto. I'd be surprised if revenue-enhancing and cost-cutting measures were not to be introduced in a very near future. And I'm afraid LCY will go down the BAA route, changing its focus from "customers first (and we wouldn't mind making some profit, mind you)" to "profits first so we can service our debt (there are no other airports nearby, so why bother with customers)".
:(


I have always thought of them as offering a good customer focused service which you didnt mind paying for. That ahs always been their approach - offer good service and I for one don't mind paying.

[virginblue]

By the way, the new AirOne services will be operated by Transwede with three ex airBaltic RJ70s.

[tom de luxe]

I have always thought of them as offering a good customer focused service which you didnt mind paying for. That ahs always been their approach - offer good service and I for one don't mind paying.
That's what I was trying to say. The BAA approach is "offer :mad: service, make customers pay an arm and a leg anyway".
LCY has been in BAA mode for a while. The car park charges seem to have gone up at 25% per annum cumulative for the last several years.
Well OK, I agree that GBP 6 as a minimum charge for parking at LCY is a bit rich. But, on the ops sid, at LCY I've never heard "there's no bus available", "you can't use that stand because we're short of staff", "we can't open all security lines", "sorry you're early, the baggage handlers will begin their shift shortly, and then we just might start unloading your luggage compartment" (LG 4401 is one of the first flights into LHR T2).

[turnipgreen]

[QUOTE=tom de luxe;2995902]That's what I was trying to say. The BAA approach is "offer :mad: service, make customers pay an arm and a leg anyway".
Well OK, I agree that GBP 6 as a minimum charge for parking at LCY is a bit rich.

£6 for parking next to the terminal? costs me 6 times that at canary wharf and 10 times that at LHR and in both cases i have to walk further that i would at LCY. ANyway, since the DLR, I tend to leave the car at home and use that with my Oyster card. About £1.20!! Now that's value.

[tom de luxe]

£6 for parking next to the terminal? costs me 6 times that at canary wharf and 10 times that at LHR and in both cases i have to walk further that i would at LCY. ANyway, since the DLR, I tend to leave the car at home and use that with my Oyster card. About £1.20!! Now that's value.
The minimum charge for parking (a car, not a plane that is) at LHR ist not GBP 60 (err... checking... no, it really isn't (yet). Phew, you never know with NCP these day). And yes, I agree that the DLR is better value and less stressful.
And did I mention I love LCY? :O

[WHBM]

I usually find that chatting to pax alongside me and finding where they are travelling to/from, the DLR is quite irrelevant for them.

A few recent ones :

Enfield
Maidstone
Heathrow
Rural Cambridgeshire

Apart from the poor American routing Antwerp-LCY-LHR-Los Angeles none of these are practical using the DLR at all.

And we live over in Beckton, just far enough away from a DLR station for luggage to be pretty impractical. By the way, have you ever tried asking a black cab to take you from LCY over to Beckton :ooh: :uhoh:

[silverelise]

Just got back from a weekend in Edinburgh having used LCY for the first time. Must say I was impressed. No queues, good service, and a nice place to have a bacon sarnie and watch the runway.
Also used public transport to get there (bus to Lewisham and then DLR) and it was 1 hour 15 mins door to door and about £2 on Oyster - making LCY a better prospect than Gatwick for weekend breaks from Bromley for us.

[virginblue]

As per another thread, LCY seems to be getting its own airline in the guise of "BA City Flyer":

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255020

[MikeStanton]

Just got back from a weekend in Edinburgh having used LCY for the first time. Must say I was impressed. No queues, good service, and a nice place to have a bacon sarnie and watch the runway.
Also used public transport to get there (bus to Lewisham and then DLR) and it was 1 hour 15 mins door to door and about £2 on Oyster - making LCY a better prospect than Gatwick for weekend breaks from Bromley for us.

I agree, I recently went to Man with VLM on one of their Fokker 50's , the check in was so fast and easy and I travelled with Bradley Walsh who I asume was going filming for corrie! I will definately be flying from LCY again very soon :)

[turnipgreen]

glad to see people are finding the benefits of LCY. I had to travel through LHR the other day to Vienna (come on LCY where is that Viennna route??) and the 2-hour check in and the queues were awful!!! Still it reminded my why I use LCY when I Can.

[virginblue]

London City Airport reports November 2006 as being the busiest month on record since the Airport opened for business in October 1987. In November 222,787 passengers travelled via London City, a 24% increase compared with the same period last year.

Richard Gooding, Chief Executive of London City Airport believes the growing passenger numbers reinforces the Airport’s new owners’ opinion, that London City Airport has an exciting growth potential: “2006 has been an excellent year for London City Airport, the route network has grown from 26 destinations to 31 with recent route launches to Milan, Madrid, Hamburg, Nuremberg and Groningen. In early November we reached the 2 million passenger milestone in a calendar year for the first time, we are expecting to reach 2.4 million in total by the year end.”

The recent sale demonstrates the true value of our business. The new owners will be looking to drive our development plans forward in order to maximise the potential of the investment.

Richard continues: “Looking ahead we are confident that in 2007 passenger numbers will continue to grow, we are forecasting an additional growth of 10%. In order to grow and maximise the potential of the Airport, our immediate and longer-term plans will be to increase capacity.


That means north of 2.6m pax in 2007


Yesterday evening, Thursday 7 December 2006, London City Airport was voted the UK’s Best Regional Airport by the readers of Buying Business Travel.

Commenting on this accolade, Charles Buchanan, Business Development Director for London City Airport said: “We are thrilled and honoured to receive such recognition from the business community.

“2006 has been a very good year for the Airport. Passenger numbers have increased by 20% and yesterday was actually our busiest day since the Airport opened in 1987, with 10,530 passengers travelling via the Airport. It has also been a year since the London City Airport Docklands Light Railway (DLR) Extension opened, which put us firmly on the public transport map. Passenger usage of the DLR has exceeded all expectations.”


Finally, I note that route survey section currently contains

# Barcelona
# Helsinki
# Rome
# Vienna

With Rome about to start by AirOne, I guess that VIE, BCN and HEL are rather safe bets as the first new destinations for BA Cityflyer. If so, Star A* might consider putting their own metal on a VIE service.

[WHBM]

Not many non-positive comments on LCY here but interested to hear opinions, like what do Health & Safety think .....

As soon as a flight is called at LCY up to 80 or so pax all head for the gate, most of which are down narrow stairs straight to a boarding card check at the foot.

And delay of any sort there, or even just the fact that all the pax head down there together, means queueing the length of the stairs, holding various carry-on items in their hands.

Over time I have seen near-falls there on several occasions. A recent one was a mother, with baby AND bags (including the Pampers - poor soul !) nearly falling down a couple of times as the queue took several minutes to edge downwards.

Then of course some are coming straight from the bar !

Can't the handling agent desk be put at the other end of the gate with a corridor fashioned along the back wall to hold people waiting on the flat ? I know it would cut down on the seats but there are rarely enough of these anyway.

[OpsSix]

WHBM, as you said there is very little seating as it is at present and whilst a holding line for pax in the gate itself may alleviate the problem of waiting on the stairwell, it would cut down on the precious little standing room the gates offer.

I only deal with F50's and J41's but even a F50 booked in the high 40's quickly fills the available space to the point where it's an effort to go from the desk to the exit door.
As you know, stands 9 and 10 share one gate and that really is 'cosy' ;)

I feel the airport really has outgrown itself now and I look forward to any expansion starting asap.

[WHBM]

During the fog yesterday (20/12) morning there was the usual holding at ALKIN and possibly further out, but was most surprised that a KLM F50 was actually holding overhead the field. It kept on making me think someone had actually got in. Is this a new procedure ? Was ALKIN full ?

[AlanM]

Alkin is rarely used for a hold - unless the aircraft are close in. This is because it blocks the 28 approach, and any traffic inbound form the north via LAM.

Some people like to hold aircraft at the LCY NDB. usually at 2000ft. Again, depends on the situation as it blocks departures. There are many ways to do it depending on the may variables in the equation! (ie if the wx was close to accpetable limits, then holding close is better so you can dive them in before it detiorates again - the outer holds are miles away. Also, maybe the TC South East Low secotr was becoming overloaded, and the friendly Thames controller brough them into the Thames airspace to help the TMA out.

ALKIN only has 3000ft and 4000ft anyway - so aircraft are held further back at SPEAR or DET or even as far out as BONDY.

[johnrizzo2000]

I would love to see BA offer more services to LCY on routes with large o&d numbers. Although they will ultimately be taking passengers from LHR routes, they could reduce flights to LHR and use those slots on new Long haul routes. A lot of pax, especially business pax would prefer to use LCY when flying to London. It would keep pax loyal to BA, as they can use LCY when flying to London, and LHR when flying everywhere else!!!!!!:}

[Airways B]

For the last week in November and the first two weeks in December, LCY has been the 8th highest airport in the UK for weekly aircraft movements, beating Luton and Glasgow in the process. Not bad for an Airport that only operates 16 hours a day, 6 days a week.

Weekday movement figures are now in the 340 mark.

[virginblue]

I just noted that Exeter has been added to the route survey section on the airport's website.

[Fried_Chicken]

I just noted that Exeter has been added to the route survey section on the airport's website.

Could they be trying to entice FlyBE back?

FC

[turnipgreen]

Could they be trying to entice FlyBE back?
FC


Could it be to do with the fact LCY are part of the consortium that bought EXT? So maybe looking to establish a link between their 2 airports? Doubt the taget would be Flybe though.

[WHBM]

LCY has had a number of the "shorter" UK domestic runs to secondary airports over the years (Cardiff, Swansea, Humberside, Sheffield, Isle of Wight, maybe others) and they never even remotely work out. Given the economic make-up of Exeter's catchment area (very few bankers) and the competition from a high-frequency train the same would seem to apply.

[Take up the Hold]

Any recent rumours/news of a Glasgow route in the near future.

TUTH

[Superpilot]

Any recent rumours/news of a Glasgow route in the near future.
TUTH


They had a survery on their website asking people interested in the route to identify their requirements. Wonder what happened as a result of that?

[Tandemrotor]

There will be a LCY-GLA operation starting (restarting?) in April.

It didn't make money last time, and it won't this time either.

But this time, it doesn't really matter.

[chrism20]

But this time, it doesn't really matter.


Why?

Who has money to burn?

[MikeStanton]

During the fog yesterday (20/12) morning there was the usual holding at ALKIN and possibly further out, but was most surprised that a KLM F50 was actually holding overhead the field. It kept on making me think someone had actually got in. Is this a new procedure ? Was ALKIN full ?


There were lots of interesting holds being undertaken over the foggy period including left handed holds at Alkin. I heard a klm pilot who was holding at spear ask for the weather at lcy, the controller told him that the rvr was only 600m but he still asked if he could try and approach. the controller replied that the airport was not allowed to under 650m.....this is my kinda pilot :)

[Barnaby the Bear]

Of course the ATCO really meant to say 'KLM.... you are advised that the current RVR is 600m which is below the absolute minima for a (name) approach to runway (number). What are you intentions?'

If the pilot then asked what that minima was, the ATCo would say that ATC are unable to supply this information to pilots and that they should refer to his Mandatory Aerodrome Operating Minima.

As per Amendment 69 Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 7 and 8. :8 :8 :8 :8

:ouch:

I deserve that!

[MikeStanton]

Listening in to Thames this morning with the wind gusting at 40kts I noticed that quite a few a/c were going around due to the crosswind and windshear, it seemed however that Swiss Air pilots were aborting there approaches more than any other airline , this may have just been coincidence and i realise that the rj100's are just about the biggest a/c that goes into city but i wonder if Swiss air has different minimums in cross winds to some other airlines as, the Ba rj's seemed generally to land ok and allmost all of the VLM Fokkers 50's ??! One way or another LCY is definately a challanging approach......:eek:

[virginblue]

I note in the IOM thread that there are rumours spreading about a new LCY-IOM route by BA Cityflyer served with their RJ100s. Dive for cover, Euromanx and VLM.....

Would be a very interesting development - they'll hand over IOM-ÖLGW to flyBE who will probably replace the BAe 146-100 with a Q400, while at the same time BA Cityflyer will deploy a RJ100 on a new route from LCY, making them the only jet operator from the IOM. If they schedule the flights properly, even some limited connections through LCY will be possible to FRA, CDG, MAD and some of the other, yet-to-be-announced BA Cityflyer destinations. We shall see.

[PPL-Trainee]

Listening in to Thames this morning with the wind gusting at 40kts I noticed that quite a few a/c were going around due to the crosswind and windshear, it seemed however that Swiss Air pilots were aborting there approaches more than any other airline , this may have just been coincidence and i realise that the rj100's are just about the biggest a/c that goes into city but i wonder if Swiss air has different minimums in cross winds to some other airlines as, the Ba rj's seemed generally to land ok and allmost all of the VLM Fokkers 50's ??! One way or another LCY is definately a challanging approach......:eek:


Very true Mike but Swiss were not the only ones. A few Luxair aircraft were cancelled today too, but the hardened VLM pilots kept their nerves on final by the looks of it with very limited travel interuptions.

Another problem was a loose concrete slab on the runway opposite Charlie which meant that the runway had to close earlier this morning. As mentioned, this didnt cause too much interuptions to airlines. As mentioned, there were gusts of up to 46kts at times today, which is enough to make me wonder (if I was in the particular situation) the maybe I should think about heading elsewhere!

46kts is rough to say the least!!

On another note, has anyone heard about the handover of the airport to an american company?

[AlanM]

Mike
As said, SWR weren't the only ones. BRT were going around too!

Losing the runway (careless!!) was unfortunate, and meant a 20 min period of nothing happening. The wind wa spretty much 28-23 max 43 til 1000hrs at least.

Oh, and the absolute minima for 28 is 700m and 10 is 800m.:ugh:

[RAFAT]

Apologies to virginblue....I should have read that properly shouldn't I.:\

My original post is therefore invalid.

[virginblue]

@RAFAT:
Read that:
....they'll hand over IOM-LGW to flyBE who will probably replace the BAe 146-100 with a Q400 on that route..
If the plans come true, the situation will most likely be:
IOM-LGW flyBE with Q400
IOM-LCY BA Cityflyer with RJ100, VLM with Fokker 50 and Euromanx with DHC8-300 (if they survive...)
IOM-STN Manx2 with Jetstream (if they continue to fly to STN).
So you have five operators on the LON market, but only one with jet equipment and a useful frequent flyer programme. I expect that BA will also offer limited connections through LCY, something flybe, manx2 and Euromanx don't do (VLM has a limited number of connections as well).



Interesting, however, the remark about flyBE and the Q400 @ LCY. I wonder why Flybe is unable to do what Lufthansa/Augsburg has already done, SAS currently does and Luxair will do sooner than later. What airmanship do they have that flyBE lacks ?

[captainyonder]

Manx2 have totally withdrawn the STN route now. BA into LCY will be overkill, however they'd definitely survive, I think we'd see VLM pull off the route sharpish and then just EuroManx and Cityflyer going head to head.

[EI-BUD]

I would be amazed if BA started LCYIOM. Access to LCY is limited and wouldnt this route be competing for some of the LGWIOM business?????

Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.

However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???

Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???

[virginblue]

I would be amazed if BA started LCYIOM. Access to LCY is limited and wouldnt this route be competing for some of the LGWIOM business?????

Since BA are going to be a 15% owner of BE as part of the sale of BAconnect, I just couldnt see BA in the context of the relationship of the 2 airlines going onto this route.

However, if its true it certainly says something about the kind of fares BA were collecting on LGWIOM???

Surely there are many LCY routes that are not served that could avoid 2 competitors , I think that would be fare more sensible for BA ???


I am led to believe that IOM-LON is, as far as high yield traffic is concerned, a market that can sustain a full service carrier and probably also some sort of smaller LCC operation.

IOM-LGW will be operated by Flybe from April. Despite having a small stake in Flybe, I doubt that BA will avoid competition with Flybe. LGW used to be the island's lifeline as it also offered some connections after the end of the LHR route. With flybe's arrival, it will become nothing more than a low cost route as flybe does not offer connections, interlining etc.

No airline will waste LHR slots for an IOM service.

So the only option for a full service airline is LCY. While it is true that this route already has two operators, those two are no rserious competition if BA will put a jet on the route, offers a FFP and some frills. It is not exactly BA competing against Air France and KLM, but BA against Euromanx and VLM....

[turnipgreen]

Is there really sufficient traffic for more IOM-LCY?? The airport web site shows surveys for Vienna, Rome, Exeter, Barcelona & Helsinki. Would Barcelona be a BA choice given they have Madrid already? I also hear mutterings about Belfast. This is something Flybe did from LCY when they were British European. Would someone (not Flybe I suspect) come back onto that I wonder? The Exeter survey maybe just that LCY are the management team at Exeter now.

[virginblue]

I am sure BCN is set to begin. There were rumours about a BCN a while ago and even rumoured that Iberia were to lease a BAe 146 from WDL to serve the route. Now that BA Cityflyer needs to find work for their RJ100s, BCN, VIE and HEL are top candidates for new routes, alongside GLA, BHD and IOM on the domestic market. Remember that BA cityflyer needs to employ ten RJ100s....

As for IOM, I think it is not a question of more services, but whether BA Cityflyer would be able to drive the incumbents out of the market.

[virginblue]

Interesting round-up by LCY's largest carrier VLM Airlines about their year 2006:

advertising
Reading the release carefully, it becomes obvious that the JER, IOM and LPL do not do well, the routes to MAN and Belgium are doing okay and the routes to Luxemburg and particularly to the Netherlands are doing great.

[Skipness One Echo]

LCY-GLA has zero competitors :) Although a BA start looks likely.
Gaz

It was such a goldmine last time it got dumped after less than a year......and this was after Scot Airways dumped it before hand.

[WHBM]

It was such a goldmine last time it got dumped after less than a year......and this was after Scot Airways dumped it before hand.
Likewise BHD, that was a FlyBe operation for a few years which I used to use. About eight was a typical business-time load in the Dash-8.

On a separate matter, following the notes above to the VLM website I find they now say 45 minutes check-in at "peak times" at LCY. Remember, all concerned, that it was the old 10 minute check-in at LCY that used to be a unique selling point. Don't feel you somehow don't have to bother organising to handle this nowadays. Sure there is now one extra security point now (3 instead of 2) but as business is up at least 50% over a few years ago that was needed just to handle the extra load.

[EI-BUD]

Virgin Blue , I agree with what you have said about there being a demand for a full service carrier on the IOM London route, and you mentioned that interlining was not available with flybe through LGW. However, although this may be true, I dont believe many people would interline at LCY ?? Do you think they would?

Like many UK airports, when BA Connect disappears they will be left with little or no full service carriers.

I hold the view that BA management will have had enough of losing money and hence will avoid going in head to head with other carrriers on future routes. I do agree that Many say GLA is a possibility. It would seem logical. However, I really couldnt see BA cityflyer doing a BHD service. BA lost money for year on the BFS LHR route and cut it weeks after 9/11. BHD LCY is a different route but I just couldnt see it happening.

Under Willie Walsh we see that such careful consideration is given to new routes. The new Calgary LHR route was opened after months of planning. The management will be extremely prudent as to the markets that they choose . With the pressures that exist on short haul routes and yield especially in the London market,BA will in my view open new markets not currently served by other carriers from LCY and they will have a good handle on the markets on there ex LHR routes.

I also must say that I realise BA and Flybe are quite separate airlines, but as BA has a vested interest in the short term at least ( being 15% shareholder), they will not go into conflict on similar rotues, ie a BA IOM LCY route would be poaching LGW IOM passengers from Flybe as well as the existing two competitiors on the the IOM LCY route.

As regards an IOM LHR route , its fate was sealed when it was closed , I cant see it coming back. And to be honest a daily flight would only be token , Bmi for eg hasnt exactly reinvigorated LHRINV since it was reintroduced, LGW continued to be the most popular route.

What are anyone elses views?

[GCIJ32]

What about BA Cityflyer offering routes to the Channel Islands. If the Isle of Man can support 2 Airlines on the route the surely the even bigger Financial Jurisdictions of Guernsey and Jersey could support a decent service, especially seeing as BA pulled out of Guernsey a few years ago, would be nice to see them back. VLM don't really offer a decent service for Jersey passengers, whereas a twice daily LCY-GCI/JER would be great, especially for connecting flights with the new BA Cityflyer!!

[virginblue]

BA Cityflyer
My suggestion is that limited connections will be possible through LCY once BA Cityflyer has built up a network using 10 Avro RJ100s. It is the same VLM currently does - you can connect from MAN, LPL, IOM and JER to AMS, RTM, BRU, ANR and LUX. The advantage of connecting at LCY compared to LHR is pretty obvious. What BA Cityflyer would, of ocurse, need is a number of domestic destinations in addition to their portfolio of destinations on the continent. Particularly BHD and IOM would make sense since these markets are not served from LHR and currently have to rely on connections through MAN/LGW, routes that will disappear once flyBE has taken over BA Connect.

VLM Airlines

My above link has been removed as it referred to the airlines' website. A quick summary of the numbers I was mentioning:
LCY-AMS 103.846 (+186%). This service commenced in April 2005.
LCY-RTM 136.343 (+21%)
LCY-GRQ (via AMS): No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2006. In December the first sold-out flight was achieved.
LCY-LUX 55.168 (+6%)
LCY-MAN 113.499 (+0.5%)
LCY-LPL 47.779 (-32,5%)
LCY-IOM: No numbers given. This service commenced in October 2005.
LCY-JER: No numbers given.

[GCIJ32]

Once Flybe has rationalised its fleet Guernsey will be left with two Q400's nightstopping as the E195 cannot land on the island yet. If BA Cityflyer decided to operate a GCI-LCY route, it may prove popular as BA would be the only Jet Operator offering flights to the island, even though cityflyer would only have limited connections, it would still prove popular as a transit destination as you can't connect with any flights on the GCI-LGW route even though there are two airlines operating on it. Im sure BA could quite easily fill an RJ100 twice a day with London and Connecting passengers twice a day!!

[RAFAT]

Interesting, however, the remark about flyBE and the Q400 @ LCY. I wonder why Flybe is unable to do what Lufthansa/Augsburg has already done, SAS currently does and Luxair will do sooner than later. What airmanship do they have that flyBE lacks ?

It's my opinion that the reluctance to do it goes right back to the start of Flybe DHC8 ops into LCY. There seemed to be an overriding fear in the minds of the fleet and training managers, which then bred thoughout the minds of the majority of the pilots. :yuk: The hand-flown raw data method that our SOPs dictated we used for the approach was completely unnecessary, and didn't do anything to help boost the confidence of many. When it came to taking the 400 in there, the Bombardier LCY DHC8-400 approach video was spread around to nicely alarm everybody, (near tailscrape!) and then the actual trials were done by the wrong people, (sim & desk drivers) they scared themselves silly and that was an end to it. The 146 fleet probably wondered what the hell all the fuss was about.

However, I suppose one must consider the opposite point of view that doing the trials with people that didn't actually fly the aircraft very often was exactly the right thing to do, given that the wider DHC8 workforce (especially now) are relatively low in experience.

[A Nonny Mouse]

I have never seen a Q400 get even close to a tail scrape (appart from when the Bombadier test pilot - named 'Wally' - nearly did it on certification - but there was probably a very good reason as to why this nearly happened).

What I have seen frequently is the Q400 running over lights, runway designator boards (Augsburg) and taking short cuts across the grass with one of their main wheels as they vacate the runway. It seems that the combination of a wide track and the nose wheel being far forward makes them quite good at this (especially if the pilot follows the yellow lines with his nose wheel).

Now that they can park on just one stand (nosewheel mod) they are very capable aircraft in and out of City. I saw an SAS aircraft rotate half way down the runway, and then get to 3000ft long before he made the initial turn at 1.5DME. I can't remember another aircraft having this performance (or maybe the load figures aren't doing too well to Copenhagen).

I also remember seeing an Augsburg one land abeam the tower (on runway 28) and still come off at 'B' so they seem to stop even better than they go.

[GBALU53]

GCIJ32

It is always good to hear when new routes come out but to even think of BA operating a London City route to and from Guernsey is pie in the sky i am afraid

The London City-Jersey route was five a day four years ago Flybe pulled out due to types of aircraft in the fleet meaning no little dashs only the 400 no good for the City.

VLM cut back as the route was losing 60k a year and the now only have on five days a week and that is based on bussiness people from the city for the day high fair sectors.

Could Guernsey have a City route well if it is a jet which it could only be with BA operating it could take away passenger from the Gatwick route well it might work as there does seem a lot of tech problems with both companies at the moment with the Dash and the ATR.

Passengers who travel on these flights on a regular basis can get pead off with delays and might look at a differant route if it is available and at a good fare.

[Airways B]

Those were the days (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBSXoqVcC34)

London city as it used to be.:)

[MarkD]

A Nonny

you should be on a Q4 with 7 pax aboard like I was from YTZ-YOW. Bloody hell... :ok:

[WHBM]

London city as it used to be
Brilliant !

Anybody recognise any of the faces ? Any still around ?

Notice that as they are taxying for departure from London City at about the 2 minute 10 seconds mark on the film there appears to be a DC-10 on the ramp. Now I wonder how we missed the arrival of that :)

[Globaliser]

Notice that as they are taxying for departure from London City at about the 2 minute 10 seconds mark on the film there appears to be a DC-10 on the ramp. Now I wonder how we missed the arrival of that :)ROTFLMAO! :)

[virginblue]

VLM Airlines

VLM Airlines to cut back LPL to just two daily flights. In its best days, the route saw, IIRC, up to five flights on weekdays. From February 4, two flights per day will leave LPL at 6.45am and 4.15pm. Fear at LPL that the route will be axed for good sooner than later

[SWBKCB]

Reported on the Newcastle thread that Eastern are to drop NCL-LCY as new fees make it uneconomic - anybody heard anything?

[towser]

Also rumour going around that Scot Airways to stop EDI-LCY. This seemed a bit far fetched to me as its a large part of all they do. Anyone heard anything?

[virginblue]

Would be quite a setback - NCL gone, LPL on the brink of extinction and now rumours about EDI with CB also facing the axe....

[sweet home ncl]

I would hope that BA citiflyer might pick this one up. Would probably work with the more competitive fares that they offer in comparison with what eastern were offering.

[chrism20]

Also rumour going around that Scot Airways to stop EDI-LCY. This seemed a bit far fetched to me as its a large part of all they do. Anyone heard anything?

I can't see this happening, it is their flagship route, loads are usually very good with the exception of the mid morning/lunchtime services - which seems to be an problem for most operators at LCY due to the nature of the business.

It is not unusual to go onto CB's booking engine and find some services are full or near full.

For example this Friday one service is already full, 5 services have less than 5 seats available and 3 southbound services have less than 9 seats available and every northbound journey has less than 9 seats available

They are not a LCC either, so I imagine yields will be pretty good

[OpsSix]

It's a shame about the Eastern service. The loads haven't been that bad lately and last nights flight departed with 13 pax although it was booked at 19. It came into LCY with 20 so not to bad at all.

There is a rumour of Eastern operating a service from ABZ to LCY via NCL using a Saab 2000 but we shall have to wait and see.

Last nights VLM LPL flight departed with only 10 on board.

[SWBKCB]

Quote from Newcastle's Evening Chronicle:
An Eastern Airways spokesman said: "Regrettably Eastern Airways is withdrawing the Newcastle to London City service as the route is not commercially viable. This is due to significant high costs associated with operating from London City Airport being dramatically increased. We are also disappointed with passenger numbers and with demand for travel to London City Airport being relatively low, we have taken a tough decision to cancel all flights. We constantly monitor all services on our route network to ensure they are commercially viable."

[WHBM]

This is due to significant high costs associated with operating from London City Airport being dramatically increasedIs this the start of the Thin End of the Wedge by the new owners ?

Mowlems - high fees, little airline service.
Dermot Desmond - more sensible fees, services hugely increased.
New owners - fees increased again, services tail off again.

[SWBKCB]

Anybody got any details on what changes have been made?

Looking to discourage smaller movements to free up slots (e.g. for the 100 seaters op by BA...)?

[Cyrano]

SWBKCB

The LCY fees are here (PDF). (http://www.lcacc.org/fees/fees06(1).pdf)

The landing fees are a flat rate independent of aircraft size (thus discouraging smaller aircraft) but IIRC they've been that way for some time.

A wild guess: could the new route landing-fee-discount period perhaps have come to an end (hence higher costs for Eastern) rather than LCY putting up their charges across the board?

C.

[Airways B]

The apron almost six years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hY5TueMRq0k)

It's much busier now!

[virginblue]

First part of the Cityflyer programme for summer 2007 is out now:

Edinburgh up to 8x daily
Zurich 4x daily *new destination*
Glasgow 4x daily *re-introduced destination*
Frankfurt 3x daily
Madrid 2x daily
Milan MXP 1x daily

Additionally rumours floating around about Manchester as a new destination.

Apparently Cityflyer is targeting Scot Airways and VLM Airlines that have helped LCY to become the airport it nowadays is. Let's hope Cityflyer will not get interested in destinations such as Brussels, Amsterdam and Luxembourg.

[turnipgreen]

You tube video - I think I recognise the duck. Think it still works there! :)

[flyer55]

Do BA Cityflyer have a valid email address / website ?


PM response please.

[2U5A]

Moderator please move me else where if appropriate!

Google Earth ruler (measuring tool) accuracy when you zoom in on high definition areas is +/- 0.101%, in other words “very accurate”. This I have validated on numerous UK airports, cross referenced to the UK AIP data and CAP168. Everything looks kosher until you start studying LCY.

I must stress that I have the greatest respect and acknowledge the skill and professionalism of all the operators/pilots who fly in and out of LCY. I have used the airport many times and I personally have no concern or issue with it. This posting is an attempt to stimulate discussion and debate, not stir a pot of poop!

I understand that LCY is a “unique” facility, facing numerous physical and environmental challenges, but with the introduction of larger aircraft using the airport (Q400 and maybe soon A318) it would appear that many rules and regulations as stipulated in CAP168 chapter 3 and 4 (aerodrome physical characteristics) are being “interpreted differently”. These rules within CAP168 have been carefully developed for a reason, primarily safety!

My observations of LCY has lead me to ask some questions? Is precedent being set? Does this now more accurately reflect the technology, skill and procedures in modern commercial air travel? Does CAP168 (some sections) need to be updated?

Some of my observations are:

- Hold point distance to centre line of runway is 60m this is OK for a class 2 aerodrome with a CAT 1 precision approach.

- Class 2 aerodrome definition is; an aerodrome with a TODA or ASDA (whichever is the greater) more than 800m but less than 1200m. LCY data from AIP is ASDA of 1319m both rwy. 10 & 28 and TODA of 1319m rwy. 10 and 1385m rwy. 28. By definition LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome (I do note that in CAP168, it is at the “discretion” of the CAA with communication with the aerodrome operator to establish the class number also the declared TORA is 1199m).

- The wingspan of Q400 and A318 being 28.42m and 34.10m respectively, then the apron taxiway centre line to “object” at LCY between hold Y and C should be 28.5m (Chapter 3 Table 3.4 CAP168), not the 22.5m as on Google earth. This means it is very tight if taxing past the stands and if the master plan is implemented aircraft will be nose in (push back) to the stand, then it will be even tighter.

- For class 2 aerodromes with a visual, non precision approach, the horizontal clear surface area is 75m either side of runway centerline (Chapter 3 section 4.3.3 CAP168) then a transitional slope of 1:5 (Chapter 4 section 4.3 of CAP168). LCY does not comply, there is a CAT 1 precision approach on both rwy 10 and 28, and also noted above LCY should be a class 3 aerodrome. With all this in mind, how else can an A318 fit nose in to a stand when the 5 new ones are built over the dock to the east?

- The current LCY apron and future parallel taxiway to hold L and M has (will have) a centerline to runway centre line separation of 87m this is fine for Code letter B aircraft (wingspan less than 24m) on a CAT 1 or 2 runway, but many commercial aircraft using LCY (exceptions; Do 226/328, Twin Otter, J41, ERJ 134, Saab 340 and Shorts 360) have a wingspan that infringes on these regulations. The scenario of two A318s with a nominal tip to tip separation of 52.9m with approach speeds of greater than 120 knots is (I believe) of concern. Does this mean the taxiway will be sterile when the larger aircraft are operating? How will LCY maintain the very high hourly movement rate?

Again I hope that this stimulates discussion because I believe that LCY could be the most advanced, optimized and efficient airport in the U.K. My wish is that LCY accelerate the proposed development (it gets real crowded sometimes) but to satisfy my curiosity; could you forum members (pilots, ATC, operations etc), who would have vast more skill and knowledge than me, offer your input.

Thank you.

[Expressflight]

If you refer to CAP 168 Chapter 3, para 4.3.3 (runway strip width), you will see that it states"....when the highest value of TODA or ASDA falls into the bottom third of code number 3 the width for a non-precision runway strip may be reduced to not less than 105m either side of the centreline....".
LCY is a code 3 aerodrome which presumably takes advantage of this rule as their TODA & ASDA is less than 1400m. I do not, however, understand how their runway is classified as 'non-precision' as it has CAT 1 ILS. Or is a CAT 1 ILS runway just an 'instrument runway' and not a 'precision approach runway' thus allowing LCY to benefit from this rule?
The apron manoeuvering area would also seem to impinge on the runway strip width, which I did not think was permitted.
I, likewise, am not trying to 'knock' LCY but just wonder if it operates under some form of derogation of the regulations due to the physical limitations of the site.
Can anyone shed any light of this apparent anomaly?

[kazi285]

Does anyone know anything about new CityJet Hub at LCY?please respond people.
cheers

[EGCJFlyer]

Hi,

Yes, just been announced to the following destinations:

Geneva - Madrid - Milan Linate - Nice - Zurich
Belfast Harbour Airport - Dundee - Edinburgh

Don't know what the frequencies or schedules are but it seems like good news.. Just hope they update those horrible old BAE146-200's!!

Cheers

[airhumberside]

BHD/DND/EDI in co-operation with Scot Airways

[WHBM]

CityJet are indeed updating their 146s/RJs. They have bought the Northwest Airlines fleet, some of the most recent manufactured, which will replace the motley origin bunch they have at present. I believe the first of about 23 has just entered service.

CityJet effectively trade as Air France, even on the London City to Dublin route (all announced as Air France even on board) which I presume will continue.

Interesting to see the note about a cooperation with Scot. Wonder if Scot will actually handle some of the thinner routes like Belfast (I used that some years ago when FlyBe did it, pax numbers often in single figures).

[spanishflea]

LCY-BHD has the potential to be a killer money earner, so many of the folks who control the strings to access to the pointy end of the bmi LHR flight are desperate to get away from LHR and bmi.

Sadly a Dornier 328 (as I understand it to be) will not do very well to attract the civil servants and politicians of Northern Ireland.

[MikeStanton]

Talking of worn out RJ'S, yesterday SWISS 456 had to divert to STN because they had a flap problem on short finals to rwy 28 at LCY. Apparently the flaps were jammed at 18 degrees and would not retract or deploy! they took up the Alkin hold for a while and I was working locally and watched the drama.... all was well I assume with a slightly speedier landing than usual at Stansted :eek:

[WHBM]

LCY-BHD has the potential to be a killer money earner
Not so fast on this one. I used the route in the couple of years when Flybe operated it, was convenient for me but seemingly few others. And at that time BMI operated into Belfast International.

I recall one trip in a 146 with about 20 on board, and others with the Dash8 where pax numbers were down to single figures. Flybe had a range of Dash8 types at Belfast then, it was always the smallest one that operated to London City.

That said, Heathrow has become more tedious and timewasting to get through, while LCY has retained its quickness, so there should be some advantage. And surely the politicians notice the low-level aircraft turning finals for LCY 10 right overhead the House of Commons terrace !

Can someone post a link to the detail of the new CityJet operation.

[turnipgreen]

I think Belfast will work. 328's are small but fast. City to City as well. NICE will be nice (excuse the pun!)

[ELondonPax]

WHBM - There is a link to the CityJet annoucement on the main page of Air France UK webiste.
They have also been very rapid and professional with publicity. I'm on their email list and got an email about the new routes last night.

[wizzels]

Hi

Has anybody any news on this incident?

[Callsign Kilo]

Believe it to have been caused by a disabled aircraft on their rwy. It all kicked off at Southend about 0845 this morning with about 4 LCY inbounds diverting in around 30 minutes.

[Vick Van Guard]

Burst tyre (or tyres) on a 146 I understand. :(

[WHBM]

LCY website :

We can confirm that an incident occurred at London City Airport this morning. The incident involved an Air France flight operated by CityJet from Paris Orly flight number AF5020 (aircraft type BAe146 - 200).

On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the Eastern End of the runway and all passengers and crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.

The runway is currently closed and we recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.

[WHBM]

LCY website :

Incident Update @ 12.30

Following the aircraft incident that occurred at London City Airport this morning at 08:35 we can confirm the runway is still closed. The Airport is now working with the aircraft operator, CityJet, to organise the recovery of the disabled aircraft, we expect this to take several more hours.

London City Airport would like to thank all the emergency services for their efforts this morning. All emergency services have now been stood down.

On landing at 08.35 the aircraft tyres burst. We can confirm the aircraft safely came to rest at the eastern end of the runway and all 55 passengers and 5 crew on board have been safety transported to the terminal.

An investigation into the cause of the incident is underway and will continue once the aircraft has been fully recovered.

We recommend all passengers travelling via London City Airport today contact their Airlines directly for further travel information.

[Dash-7 lover]

Airfield opened around 1730z

[Chuffer Chadley]

I was stuck in LCY today due to this incident-

At about 0835, after what appeared to be a fairly normal touchdown (though landings on 10 are often sporting!), I heard the Cityjet crew report to ATC that they were stopped on the runway- the aircraft was at the upwind threshold end of 10, hard to be sure, but seemed to be to the left of the centreline, pointing somewhat to the right.

Lots of waiting around then ensued...

Crew later reported that the Capt and FO both tried their brakes to no good effect, emergency brakes used, and resulted in an immobilised aircraft.

When the 146 was being towed past us, the tyres (the ones on the wheels that hadn't been changed) were in a very bad way indeed.

Everyone OK, as far as I know, which is nice.

[mikehammer]

Probably due to a complete lack of experience in such matters, I am surprised how long it takes to clear a runway of a disabled a/c.

[TheOddOne]

You'd think they'd just bulldoze the thing over the side, like they used to on aircraft carriers! (Okay, Okay, only joking!)

My record is under 2 hours for a 737 with 2 seriously burst tyres on the Stbd side.
There are 4 major stumbling blocks to a swift recovery:
a) availability of spare parts - these often have to come by road
b) availability of a maintenance contract with an on-site organisation.
c) availability of suitable lifting gear so that an axle with a double tyre burst can be safely lifted to allow a wheel change
d) If the tyres burst during emergency braking, these can be seized on and it can take some hours before they can be changed so that the wheels can revolve - the a/c can't be moved until this happens.
A lot of the delay can also be around the arrangements for financial compensation for doing the work - many small operators don't have arrangements beyond a headset person at each port of call, despite the best efforts of airport mangements to persuade operators to have something better in place. 9 hours? Well, I'm not suprised. I'd probably say at least 6 with seized brakes and no parts on station, even on a good day.

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[llondel]

I know it's a bit simplistic, but wouldn't it be easier if there was a standard agreement in place that if you land somewhere and don't have a specific maintance agreement to cover burst tyres and the like, the airport reserves the right to commence work in order that it can clear the runway and charge a particular tariff based on things like aircraft type and duration of blockage? Fixing the aircraft permanently can then done once paperwork is sorted.

Who pays for the lost revenue at LCY while the runway was closed?

[TheOddOne]

Who pays for the lost revenue at LCY while the runway was closed?

A most excellent point!

Airlines are quick to try and claim against an airport when it's unavailable because of adverse weather etc but when they are the ones causing the problem, it all goes very quiet.

More seriously, perhaps IATA could organise a bond similar to the ATOL system, so that there are funds available. However, that wouldn't solve the problem of not having spares available on-site. In this case, maybe 4 x 146 brake sets, wheels & tyres. AND the tools and qualified engineeers to effect the repairs. Many aircraft operators' margins are very thin and they may not be able to afford the cost of a bond. Others like that Irish carrier at Stansted aren't members (I believe) of IATA so wouldn't join in anyway.

At LGW, we have kit which we own ourselves to enable us to recover a small aircraft with a wheel problem - it's essentially flat plate mounted between 2 wheels attached to a long 'A'-frame. The affected wheel can be winched on to the plate and the whole assy towed at the same time as the rest of the a/c. Works well up to twin otter/C404 size aircraft but it's not big enough for this case.

The other side of the coin is that these events are very rare so no-one has the incentive really to do anything about it - when was the last time LCY was closed for a length of time for a tyre burst? Maybe this is the first time in 20 years?

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[WHBM]

Well done to someone at LCY for managing to keep this almost entirely out of the media. There was a bit on the BBC website, that appeared to be it. Nothing on TV or radio news, or on Teletext at all. So no overhyped stories, and nothing about Narrowly Missing a School (or my house :) )

Regarding being "prepared" for such events, these things happen from time to time, and each is so oddball and different that you could never really envisage what might be required to deal with it.

[TourDriver]

Apart from the small article in last nights London Evening Standard, which headlined with something like 'Crash Landing at City Airport'.

Tourdriver

[GBALU53]

It was only burst tyries?

So is this sort of thing classified as top news, in my opinion no.

With London City being restricted in what they have to cater for burst tyries I would think each carrier needs to hold spares of wheels at the City but if more than one tyrie goes it is a major problem as they might have to get some from somewhere else in this case with a BAE146 Southend cood be one to supply wheels at a cost.

So until the full picture comes out it was very very minor problem normally other than being at the Docklands.

[Vick Van Guard]

It was only burst tyries?
No it was burst tyres. One might be classed as 'only', but when it is all four it is a different matter.
So is this sort of thing classified as top news, in my opinion no
It wasn’t.

With London City being restricted in what they have to cater for burst tyries I would think each carrier needs to hold spares of wheels at the City but if more than one tyrie goes it is a major problem as they might have to get some from somewhere else in this case with a BAE146 Southend cood be one to supply wheels at a cost.
They do.

The problem you have with the 146, if more than one tyre has deflated, is the reduced height under the axle to get a jack underneath. It is doubly difficult if the tyres on the other side have blown, and as The Odd One as already pointed out, the wheels were probably seized on to the axle due to the excessive heat generated by the braking. Also bare in mind the aircraft anti-skid system would have been inop if emergency brakes were used.

[Doors to Automatic]

Have a read of The Sun's reporting of this incident at www.thesun.co.uk - pure class!! :p

[WHBM]

Pathetic ! Oh, and it looks like I spoke too soon above.

The next jet coming in to land had to pull sharply back up into the sky to avoid crashing into the stricken aircraft.
Come on, you guys and gals in City Tower, let's rehearse now :

"Rubens 123, Pull sharply back up into the sky to avoid crashing into the stricken aircraft, I say again, pull sharply back up into the sky to avoid crashing into the stricken aircraft"

[wawkrk]

As reported on UK Airport news.
The aircraft was trying to land on the runway.

http://www.uk-airport-news.info/

[virginblue]

How is the airport going to accommodate all these RJ85/100s ? BA Cityflyer has announced 11 new daily flights, City Jet will have a dozen or so additional flights. Plus additional flights by Scot Airways and VLM - most of them probably not at off-peak times....

[PICTUREPERFECT]

Just read those news reports, didn't realise the bae 146 had autobraking like the B737, isn't it by manual selection and if all else fails emergency braking.
Plus they describe witnesses saying aircraft bounced a number of times on landing and blamed this on tires bursting. Didn't the tires burst because of emergency brake usage not because of a hard landing. Isn't it aircraft lands manual brakes failed and emergency brakes used on roll out. They make out the whole thing began on touchdown and then blame autobrake failure.:confused:
Which is it?

[Dash-7 lover]

Virgin Blue

I agree with you - already the airport is stretched to capacity at peak times. Once the doors are closed it can take up to 45 minutes to get airborne and if an aircraft is on the ground for more than the turnaround time airfield ops are on the blower. They've even asked us to position an aircraft out to another airport and position it back again when it was only going to be on the ground for 3 hours!

[towser]

The 146/RJ does not have auto brakes they must be applied manually. In normal braking on either hydraulic system (there are 2 ) you have anti skid. If the brakes don't work on either system you are left with emergency brakes which have no anti skid protection ( and if memory serves me right) the brakes are applied by using the parking brake handle so its very easy to lock the wheels, which is what appears to have happened here.

[renard]

RJ has two braking systems, yellow and green.
Default system is yellow, if they dont work, switch to green.
The emergency yellow system is only used if both fail, and is used with the normal foot brakes.
If emergency yellow is used:
No anti-skid available on EMERG YEL. Exercise extreme caution in braking. Use minimum braking consistent with runway length available

[towser]

Renard I had a vague recollection that emergency brakes were applied by use of park brake handle? I could of course be mixing it up with another previous type!

[Chuffer Chadley]

Picture Perfect:

Ref aircraft 'bouncing a number of times'. It didn't. Perhaps it made 2 touchdowns, but that's not uncommon on rwy 10- I understand that the 146s suffer particularly in a tailwind, which there was on short finals, but not at the surface, that day.

Certainly the touchdown didn't look uncomfortable enough to burst tyres. However, not being a 146-jock, I could be wrong!

CC

[PICTUREPERFECT]

Yes as I said this what the news papers had, the passengers were talking about bouncing on landing which is common in the city and bursting the tires then referring to auto brake failure causing them to burst.???

[PICTUREPERFECT]

Is it common on the 146 for two independent systems to fail and having to revert to emergency or are they completely redundant? Short enough runway to be switching between systems with water approaching or would it be the case if time or distance available doesn't allow go to emergency straight after first failure to guarantee a sure stop?

[Fried_Chicken]

I see rthe Challenger 605 has been trialed at LCY this week with further tests over the next couple of days. Assuming everything goes to plan & it does gain LCY certification, it wouldn't be able to operate transaltlantic off LCY's runway?

Also, with the new Airport owners, will there still be a LCY funday this year?

FC

[WHBM]

Seems nothing concrete yet about the new Air France / Scot flights, with just a few weeks to go to the start.

No new schedules on the Air France or Cityjet sites, the LCY site, or any of the main booking systems. Just an issue to me as I need to do a business trip to Belfast soon and would be nice to try the new service rather than go through the timewasting of going up to Stansted.

Scot Airways website describes a new 0650 early morning flight from LCY to Edinburgh and back operated by a 146 - presumably a Cityjet one. This seems to miss the market, as that is really too early for much northbound business, and by the time it comes back south the peak from Edinburgh has passed. Is this the start of Cityjet taking over the route ?

Regarding the codeshare, I hadn't noticed previously that Scot are still codesharing with Flybe on the Edinburgh route, long after Flybe otherwise got out of LCY. Is this going to continue ?

[spanishflea]

No reason why the 605 couldnt operate transatlantic from LCY. Dassault Falcons do it from LCY reasonably regularly to places like Teterboro and Washington.

[themoonsaballoon]

Err except it would turn into a glider somewhere over the Atlantic!

[AlanM]

Everyday is a funday at LCY!

I have never seen G-LCYA or any biz jet go out across the pond. A few have come in from long distance.

I would be impressed if the climb out gradient and lack of runway length allowed it.

[themoonsaballoon]

7X will do it !

[spanishflea]

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/HBJSY/history/20070131/1627Z/EGLC/KTTN

31st Jan EGLC-KTTN 7h47m

[AlanM]

Blimey..... Impressed!

[spanishflea]

Indeed! I remember seeing it at the time and being pretty certain I'd never seen anything do it before!

[WHBM]

I would be impressed if the climb out gradient and lack of runway length allowed it.
Just a quick question here but as I understand it the climbout gradient in both directions is limited by structures, Canary Wharf tower to the west and the ELRC bridge to the east.

Except that the ELRC bridge has not been built yet. As it stands when you look to the east everything is clear. So if you are on 10 at EGLC is the theoretical climbout restriction still in force ? I'm aware that operators do sometimes request the reciprocal runway to that in use for "performance reasons".

[AlanM]

I would guess that the climbout gradient is more to do with noise abatement than anything else off 10.

Opposite direct departures happens a lot - a F50 often has to have 10 when the wind is right across and often with a slight tailwind component.

[themoonsaballoon]

Spanish flea, I think the 900EX is the only machine capable of this feat until the 7X comes into service.Challenger will not have the range.

[Bright-Ling]

Do tell more.........

[turnipgreen]

I am sure i read somewhere in the local paper or maybe on their web site that the fun day would be happening as usual in July this year. Lat year was great - even got to watch England lose against Portugal on a big screen they had brought in to the airport. (Ok the esult wasnt good but the day was!)

[we_never_change]

Apparently trials of the CL605 went well with possibly more trails planned at a later date. However, the old problem of parking space has been brought up with the biz ramp being full to capacity at times & the Challenger isn't exactly a small aircraft.
WNC

[Fried_Chicken]

From the VLM website

VLM Airlines to introduce Jet services

BAe 146 to serve high-density London City – Rotterdam route

Antwerp, Monday 5 March 2007, VLM Airlines has today announced that it will
enhance its fleet with the introduction of a jet aircraft for the first time
The 92-seat BAe 146-300 will enter service on April 16th, 2007, and will be
operated on one of the airline’s busiest routes betweenLondon City and
Rotterdam City

The jet is being introduced into VLM Airlines’ fleet to enable it to
increase capacity on one of its busiest routes, where it will operate
alongside the carrier’s Fokker 50 aircraft. The airline will maintain its
ten daily return flights between London City and Rotterdam, with four to be
operated by the BAe 146. The airline carried over 130,000 passengers on the
route in 2006, and estimates that it will carry around 190,000 in 2007.

The VLM Airlines BAe 146-300 will seat up to 92 passengers, in a spacious
five abreast (3+2) configuration, with leather seats and a generous seat
pitch of 32 inches. This is a stark contrast to most other large airlines
which offer up to 110 seats on this type, in a tight 3+3 configuration, with
a seat pitch of just 28-29 inches.

Johan Vanneste, Managing Director of VLM Airlines comments: “We are
delighted to be introducing the BAe 146 jet to our fleet. Increasing
numbers of business travellers are utilising our network and, in particular,
our London City to Rotterdam service, and this larger, faster aircraft is
essential to meet this growing demand.“

The jet’s arrival will release some Fokker 50 capacity from its London City
to Rotterdam route, allowing VLM Airlines to increase frequencies on other
routes within its network. The airline currently operates a fleet of 19
Fokker 50 aircraft, and will add a further two of the aircraft to its fleet
this year.

[Vick Van Guard]

It now seems that the circumstances behind the City Jet (Air France) landing incident are surprisingly similar to that of the Atlantic Airways landing in Norway.

I thought the failure of some / all of the lift spoilers were a contributory factor in the Atlantic Airways incident, which wasn't the case in this instance. :confused:

Noticed that the new CJ routes are now bookable on their website.

[virginblue]

My understanding is that with effect summer schedule Swiss will nightstop an aircraft at LCY to allow for an 0700ish departure to ZRH.

Will there be other nightstoppers in addition to the long-time Cityjet 146 to ORY and the Scot Dornier to EDI now that both BA Cityflyer and Cityjet will expand like crazy ?

[towser]

Cityflyer due to have 2 nightstoppers in LCY

[Skipness One Echo]

I understand that Swiss already night stop an RJ for the early morning Geneva. So are we going from this pus 1 ScotAir Do328 and a CityJet 146 to adding 2 BA and another Swiss RJ?

[turnipgreen]

Makes sense though doesnt it? Capacity overnight and a growing catchment area around the airport?

[WHBM]

The new Cityjet/Air France schedules don't seem completely set up yet (like Milan times were still missing the last time I checked) but there appear to be at least two night stopping aircraft, and if there is an early morning departure to Milan that would make it three.

Is Cityjet setting up a crew base at London City ? If I am correct Scot already have a small base but this will be the first jet basing. How many crew will be here ?

I'm off at a grossly early hour tomorrow to Heathrow to get to Belfast City. Roll on the new Scot BHD service (although the times give a bit of a short business day in Belfast).

[Manston Airport]

Hi all just seen a programme Flight Deck with BAE 146-200 and it going into LCY and I was wondering can the Fokker 70 land at LCY,If so has anyone flown it into LCY ?:confused:

Regards
JAmes

[WHBM]

The F70 operated into London City for a few years in the late 1990s on the Air France flights from Paris. From the ground it was a noisy little thing in comparison to the 146. It was replaced by the franchise arrangement Air france struck with Cityjet to use 146s instead in AF livery, which also gave about 20 more seats per flight.

[virginblue]

Air France replaced the Fokker 70 because of performance issues, mainly related to braking in wet conditions IIRC. These problems were the triggering event to join forces with Cityjet who had a more suitable aircraft available.

By the way, the Fokker 70 needs a few modifications for LCY ops, mainly software-wise. the onyl aircraft modified as such are the ex Air Littoral Fokker 70s which are flying with Regional, if memory serves.

[fredtheanorak]

Any of you guys herd anything about the BA LCY-IOM rumoured start date:confused: :confused:

[towser]

Don't know where you heard the rumour of a start date but as far as I'm aware it isn't and never was starting!

[virginblue]

Who knows - with all these rumours about BA being interested in taking over VLM to expand the LCY operation, BA could inherit a IOM route....

[Skipness One Echo]

Rubbish! BA take over another airline? Crikey that would never happen again surely......really ? You reckon? Are they SO stupid? They are? Oh sorry........I am so naive.

[Cyrano]

Who knows - with all these rumours about BA being interested in taking over VLM to expand the LCY operation....
Where've you heard that then? Oh, go on...

...aha. Further research suggests that "industry sources" told the Evening Standard this, but not much more.

[Manston Airport]

A BA F50 that could work, Hope they dont take them over then all 22 F50 will be gone:( I see on the BA cityflyer post they have ordered some A318?

James

[Cyrano]

I see on the BA cityflyer post they have ordered some A318
That "order" would seem to be news to BA and to Airbus!

Given that the person who posted this sensational rumour in the Cabin crew forum (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3179989&postcount=46) is also under the impression that VLM is Dutch, I suspect that a little inaccuracy has crept in. BA mainline, BA cityflyer, A320s, A318s, what's the difference? ;)

(Note: BA *could* decide to order A318s in the future. They have a pile of A319 options which could be converted to other types in the family. But they have not ordered A318s yet, and frankly if I were launching a new operation at LCY I'd want to be reasonably sure that it was going to work out and hit my 10% operating margin target before I signed up for a few hundred million $ worth of rather niche-y aircraft.)

[virginblue]

Why not ? It will be the easiest way to get slots at slot-constrained LCY, the expertise of an airline that has been running a succesful operation for more than 15 years from LCY and a network that certainly must be of interest to anyone who is seriously interested in developing LCY into a new market in addition to LHR and LGW. Plus, on most routes VLM is now facing the problem that they require a larger type of aircraft than the Fokker 50.

This is from a Dutch website:

Bij VLM Airlines is niets bekend over de vermeende overnameplannen van British Airways. “In ieder geval zijn er geen overnamegesprekken gaande”, meldt woordvoerster Catherine Stuyck aan Luchtvaartnieuws.nl.

Bij Panta Holdings, het moederbedrijf van VLM Airlines, was donderdag niemand bereikbaar voor commentaar. BA weigert in Britse media commentaar op speculaties over VLM.

= A VLM spokeswoman has said that there are no take-over talks and VLM is unaware of any interest by BA. VLM's owner (Panta, also the owner of Denim) has not been available for comment, BA has refused to make a comment.

[manx crab]

You have to hope none of this about VLM is true, or is BA going to go for the record in :mad: up regional airlines. Maybe they could put DE in charge.

[100above]

Manx Crab
Thats very unfair. DE has been a driving force in the expansion of UK regional airlines - Air Southwest, Eastern and Loganair for example have all profited from his and his employers wisdom of offloading profitable routes - just a shame the regional airline he was meant to be running went down the pan in the process.......:rolleyes:

[Manston Airport]

on most routes VLM is now facing the problem that they require a larger type of aircraft than the Fokker 50.
Are they not getting two more F50 this year:confused: And has the A318 got rights now to land at LCY?

Regards
James

[towser]

A318 has been certified for LCY ,I believe, but there's nowhere to park it yet!

[virginblue]

Yes, but they are now expanding outside LCY, e.g. with the new ANR-MAN route. This is pretty much what their CEO said in an interview last year. Given the current situation - only destinations less than 500mls away being feasible with Fokker 50, almost all promising destiations within this perimeter being served now and the difficulties to get peak time slots at LCY, growth will focus on markets outside LCY until the airport has added capacity and the airline sorted out its future fleet.

VLM could easily fill larger aircraft during peak times on most of their routes, but so far had to try to squeeze in additional Fokker 50 flights. While frequency is on eof VLM's main selling points, it does not really make sense to have aircraft departing in 15minute intervals. With routes like AMS, RTM, MAN now hat 9+ flights on weekdays, it certainly would help to have a larger type of aircraft for the mornings and evenings.

[GBALU53]

A senior person from Jersey Airport managment spoke on Monday last and said, there could be more London City-Jersey flights, they are working on it at the moment any ideas on this or comments.

The Manchester flight into City in the morning modnay to friday goes down to Jersey and has a seven hour lay over, is this where they are looking at doing something like operate the aircraft back to City in the morning and then down to Jersey to make good the late afternoon?

Or are they looking at weekend service?

[towser]

The only way the 318 will have parking space is if they fill in the dock to the left of stand 1. This is on the airports expansion plans but time scale is a bit sketchy!

[AlanM]

I though that the 146 was being used by VLM for the Rotterdam flight??

Here is their artists impression of their new toy:

http://www.flyvlm.com/myImages/04/010/003/jet_small.jpg

[virginblue]

The BAe 146 is for four of the RTM rotations, LUX was just a rumour. The 146 will be operated by Flightline, so it is no real long-term decision fleet-wise.

[HS-125]

The only way the 318 will have parking space is if they fill in the dock to the left of stand 1. This is on the airports expansion plans but time scale is a bit sketchy!

It's only a matter of time - the airport has already had the planning permission for I believe, 5 new stands built in the dock.

Who knows, a parallel taxiway might be in the equation too?

/S :ok:

[WHBM]

The proposed 5 additional stands A318-sized will provide at least a new hold to the east of Charlie (so presumably it will be Delta), at the east end of the apron extension, so at least time taken for backtracking will be reduced. However a full length parallel taxiway is not part of the plan.

Remember the current stands were actually sized for Dash-7s !

It will be a big job as presumably there will need to be a terminal building extension to the east as well, the current departure lounge is too small at peak times, the security is getting stretched, and there is nowhere currently for airline business lounges which a number of operators at LCY feel is a missing item for their premium pax there.

[AlanM]

This is from the www.lcacc.org

http://www.pbase.com/kbmphotography/image/75881867.jpg

[WHBM]

Nose-in parking.

That will add to the turnround time (and presumably costs) compared to the present arrangements. How many more gates, if any, will it make available in the current area ? Presumably there would have to be significant alterations to the terminal building if the gate spacing is changed.

It will also make access to aircraft rear doors more convoluted for the pax.

[virginblue]

I am surprised that the unused space between the gate area and the DLR station is not used for an extension of retail space, for dedicated airline lounges and an enlarged waiting area. Should be possible without too much investment and the space is available. I know that there are plans for such an extension at a later stage, but given the unbearable situation airside at peak times, they really should fast track this before the background of additional flights by BA Cityflyer and Cityjet.

[marlowe]

Best of luck to VLM when it is bought by BA and the slots handed to Cityflyer!!

[Manston Airport]

Hope VLM stay as they are and not taking over by BA:ugh: Plus dont the VLM CEO own Denim Air and Rekkof? Maybe if VLM did get taking over by BA he replace VLM with Denim Air?:confused:
Here is what there plains are for LCY. http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b251/JamesB617/future3lge.jpg

All the Best
James:cool:

[turnipgreen]

would VLM ever sell out to BA or anyone else? LCY is their home base in effect. Surely they wouldn't?

[WHBM]

BA are just in the throes of dumping all their commuter-style propeller aircraft operations through their various franchises. It will take a couple of years at least therefore before their Grand Old Duke Of York style "Now we buy them for £100m, now we sell them for £1" attitude to smaller aircraft operations cycles round again and Willie's successor has the brainwave of buying up smaller airlines like VLM to operate under the BA name.

Just in case you think I am being unduly cynical I can remember BA transferring their local services to smaller airlines in the 1960s, then building up their local services again in the 1970s, then dumping them all around 1982 when all the BA Viscounts were withdrawn, then building it all up again. Then in the 1980s they disposed of their smaller routes at Gatwick, many to the independent City Flyer, which at the end of the process they then purchased. And currently .......

Meanwhile back to today at LCY we are at the start date (Mon 26 March) of the greatly expanded Air France operation at London City with no hard information on what's going on. Has anyone booked on the "new services" ? Are they starting "later" ? Is just Belfast starting on Monday (with no publicity it seems they will doubtless have minimal loads) ?

[Tandemrotor]

Heard recently, that in the peak evening period, there are soon going to be 32 aircraft fighting for 14 stands!

Just sit back and enjoy.

[Sammie_nl]

Any chance that the Flightline 146 flying for VLM to RTM is a former AirUK machine, that would be ironic, as I seem to remember those birds flying the LCY route, many moons ago...

[virginblue]

Flying out of LCY on Friday, I noted a SAS Q400 at the biz apron. Such a long beast squeezed into a corner of the tiny apron was a pretty unsual sight. As there was another Q400 on the ground, I suppose it was tech ?

[HS-125]

Flying out of LCY on Friday, I noted a SAS Q400 at the biz apron. Such a long beast squeezed into a corner of the tiny apron was a pretty unsual sight. As there was another Q400 on the ground, I suppose it was tech ? Yesterday 04:11

Yes, aircraft was tech. Departed I believe on Friday, and was replaced by a 146! :ok:

[marlowe]

WHBM its all about the slots!! BA dont require Fokker 50s and turbo prop operations. What they do require, if they are serious at LCY is more peak time slots, thats what they need, and VLM have them. So are we gonna see how serious Willy is about LCY? I know he has stated that BACF has to show a 10% profit but will he speculate to accumilate?

[Cyrano]

Meanwhile back to today at LCY we are at the start date (Mon 26 March) of the greatly expanded Air France operation at London City with no hard information on what's going on. Has anyone booked on the "new services" ? Are they starting "later" ? Is just Belfast starting on Monday (with no publicity it seems they will doubtless have minimal loads) ?

Belfast started yesterday, the other services (ZRH, GVA, MAD, NCE) start Apr 9. The DND/EDI codeshare with Scot will be later still as the challenges of the ongoing AF/KL reservation system integration have led to an AF edict that no new free-flow codeshares can be implemented for at least a couple of months. :rolleyes: And Milan... well, watch this space.

Meanwhile the AF "forward bookings are for wimps" advertising/publicity machine is revving up but yes, there will certainly be very light loads at first.

[airhumberside]

Is BHD being sold by Scot Airways or just by AF/Cityjet

[chrism20]

It is not available to book on the Scotairways website and when attempting to book through Expedia it comes up as an AF route.

Bit strange, I would have thought that Scotairways would have liked to have marketed it themselves as well to increase awareness and their cut.

What was the loads like on it today? Unless they have launched it for someone I can't see the loads being that impressive as it hasn't been advertised much to be honest

[WHBM]

Well I came through BHD (BMI to/from Heathrow) last Wednesday 21 March and with 4 days to go there was no sign anywhere there of the new service.

Even the London City website has the flights (AF 5150-55 series) shown on its arrival/departure pages (http://www.londoncityairport.com/index.php?mode=fids&action=arrivals) with blank for a destination ! Look at it today, you will see, this is the third day like this. What a bizarre, lack of publicity approach.

[ALLMCC]

A recent newspaper article reported that D328s would only be used on BHD until September when they would be replaced by RJ85s - if this is the plan,it would explain why flights can't be booked via Scot Airways own website - they will only be operating for Cityjet on this route for a few months.

BTW, the last flight yesterday into BHD had a total of 4 pax - not very promising!

[WHBM]

BTW, the last flight yesterday into BHD had a total of 4 pax - not very promising!
I think the trouble with such an operation is division of responsibility.

Who is responsible for it's publicity ? Air France ? Cityjet ? Scot ?

4 pax on day 1 is pathetic. Where were the free seats given out to journalists, prominent media people, the most frequent fliers on the BMI service, etc ? Where were the publicity puffs on Belfast and London radio stations ?

At least the glitch on the LCY website arrivals information has been fixed. Thank you whoever reads here !

In passing did the LCY management themselves turn out to give it a sendoff ?

[justanotherstat]

To answer one of the above questions, the BHD is being sold and "marketed?" by AirFrance Cityjet as it is their route. ScotAirways are only wet leased to operate the route presumably whilst it is built up enough to justify using an RJ on it.

[chrism20]

They had better start marketing it soon, or it will be difficult to even justify a D328 on it, let alone an RJ

[virginblue]

Not totally surprising:
Now Norwegians can also fly direct to the heart of London. SAS Braathens is to launch a new route to London City Airport.


London City Airport is situated only ten kilometers from the City of London, which is one of Europe's leading financial centers. Many banks, stock-broking firms and law firms have their headquarters here. "Many of our London passengers are business travelers with high demands for an efficient and convenient journey. We are dedicated to fulfilling these needs and are therefore launching this route to London City," says Johnny Skoglund, Vice President at SAS Braathens.

There will be two daily departures between Oslo Gardermoen and London City, commencing on August 28. SAS Braathens already operates up to five daily departures between Oslo Gardermoen and London Heathrow....

Scandinavian Airlines Sverige and Scandinavian Airlines Danmark have experienced tremendous success with their flights to London City from Stockholm and Copenhagen. Now this attractive destination is also available to SAS Braathens passengers.

The route will be operated by Transwede.

Another RJ70 route operated by Transwede. They will have at least 4 RJ70s allocated to LCY ops by the end of the summer.

I am not sure if Oslo has come about because the planned flights to Genoa and Torino on behalf of Air One appear to have been cancelled for good and will not be started for the time being.

The most obviously missing routes now are Helsinki and Vienna. Wonder if BA Cityflyer will move in on those two.

[Manston Airport]

Great news for LCY :D The most obviously missing routes now are Helsinki Could Finnair not fly the route on a EMB170?

Regards
James

[WHBM]

Doesn't have to be Finnair. Blue1 in Finland already have a 146 fleet, and are part of SAS. But 2h45m off the LCY runway is probably pushing the 146 a bit.

[Manston Airport]

yeah it is pushing it abit. What range does the RJ100 have?

Regards
James

[AlanM]

And LCY had 359 movements on Thursday 29th March 07.

A new daily record for the airfield I believe.

And as it was open from 0630-2230 - an average of over 22 movements per hour. Not bad when you consider the quiet periods, and the last 90 mins only had 3 movements.

[MikeStanton]

Yes it definatley seems busier than ever although I bet the thames radar controllers luv the last Swiss arrival sometimes nearly an hour late at allmost 2230.

[AlanM]

Gawd bless that Swiss!

On a bright note - at least it is inbound and not outbound (everyone has to wait 15 mins after an outbound departs... just in case).

Also, we are there on radar normally til 2245 so it is an early go really!!! :)

(in reality - it hasn't been the last flight for the last couple of afternoon shifts I stayed for)

[Wycombe]

Big ad in The Torygraph yesterday, mentioning WX flights to BHD, DUB, DND, EDI, GVA, MAD, Milan (not sure which one), NCE, CDG, ZRH from LCY.

[WHBM]

Bank Holiday today, so as prescribed in the planning consent the airport cannot open until 09.00, presumably to preserve the peace and quiet of the local residents.

And from 08.45 onwards here is someone therefore having to do an NDB hold at 2,000 feet orbiting the field, doubtless far more noticeable than if he was allowed to land. Of such stupidities are our politicians proud of themselves.

[Mr A Tis]

..or the alternative view, if you know full well, the airfield does not open until 0900, then arrange to arrive not before.

[AlanM]

OR hold them at SPEAR at 4000ft or ALKIN at 3/4000ft????

(Unless of course there were more than one that turned up early for LCY or Biggin.... which may be the case)

[WHBM]

It appeared that at least eight inbounds scheduled themselves to arrive right on 0900, the moment things opened.

Bear in mind operators have to make special arrangements for LCY restricted times on these days, people like Swiss with integrated aircraft allocations have to do a lot of juggling to handle things.

It's not like it was in the days when one Brymon and one Eurocity Express arrived on a Bank Holiday morning :)

[AlanM]

Doesn't surprise me at all.

The other Sunday there was something similar, with traffic arriving way before 1230L. Told that they couldn't land for 20 minutes, which they were aware of.

Aircraft speed: Full out at 230kts with 40 track miles to go and with a tail wind meant 265kts ground speed.

Also, Biggin would have had a late opening and I had a Gulfstream for over an hour around ALKIN one bank holiday (Ended up vectoring around London at 2000ft for 20 mins as he was bored........!!) He said it was the best part of the flight from Teterboro!

[turnipgreen]

'Doesn't have to be Finnair. Blue1 in Finland already have a 146 fleet, and are part of SAS. But 2h45m off the LCY runway is probably pushing the 146 a bit.'

At a push the RJ85 could do Helsinki I think but it might be weight restricted? It surely has to follow though doesn't it?

[virginblue]

Currently the longest routes from LCY are ARN and FCO, both at approx 880mi and served with RJ70s. HEL would add another 250mi, so quite a stretch. The longest RJ100 route is MAD at 770mi.

Are any of the former Air Malta/Azzurra Air RJ70s still available (I know one has gone to the VAE as a VIP aircraft) ? They would problably be the only aircraft suited as they received additional at Air Malta's request tanks when built. I remeber they flew MLA-DUS regularly which is exactly the distance between HEL and LCY.

[San Expiry]

Weren't the RJ70s that Euromanx used to operate formerly Air Malta aircraft; where are they now? They might have been a little too hasty getting rid of the ir jets given the boom in new RJ suitable routes out of LCY.

[MikeStanton]

Bank Holiday today, so as prescribed in the planning consent the airport cannot open until 09.00, presumably to preserve the peace and quiet of the local residents.

And from 08.45 onwards here is someone therefore having to do an NDB hold at 2,000 feet orbiting the field, doubtless far more noticeable than if he was allowed to land. Of such stupidities are our politicians proud of themselves.

Yeah I watched a Fokker 50 going around and around in what I asume was the ALkin hold, I was puzzled at first to why this was, then I realised it 845am on Good Friday. The cant land till 9am does seem stupid, with the A/c just wasting fuel. Instead of waking the folks up on the glide path they wake half of south east London instead :eek: Although I dont mind seeing those nice Fokkers circling my house, at least it wasnt a rj100 :)

[WHBM]

The circling aircraft was actually holding on the NDB which is on the field at London City. Alkin is out in North Kent, and as suggested above was likely already full.

Back to the fate of certain 146s, supposedly more my area of knowledge. Of the four Air Malta aircraft one is now operated for SAS by Transwede and can be seen at LCY daily on the Stockholm flight, another got fitted out for VIP work in the Middle East, and the two that passed through Euromanx's hands (and on one of which I once enjoyed a shambolic journey from LCY to the Isle of Man) continue to have bad luck as they were taken by an Italian independent which more recently has ceased operating so they are once more laid up, at Exeter, and thus presumably up for grabs.

But an RJ70 is such a small, niche market aircraft. Helsinki (speaking as one who has been there and finds it has a nice airport but is otherwise a rather simplistic little city) is not THAT strong a financial business market so you would need business in the Y cabin as well. And just because the RJ70 could do Malta to Dusseldorf, both with 10,000 foot runways, wouldn't necessarily mean it could lift out of LCY the same.

[virginblue]

I agree with your comment re the viability of a HEL route but as they are now giving OSL a try, it might work.

As for the Air Malta RJ70s, DUS was probably a bad example. The RJ70s were purchased by Air Malta to provide services from smaller regional airports inaccessible for larger aircraft, thus making Malta an anttractice holiday destination for the local folks. For example, in Germany airports such as BWE, KSF and HOQ were served, all with 1.500m runways. BWE-MLA, for example, is 1152mi, KSF-MLA 1.103mi. Not sure how much the difference in runway length will eat up from that perimeter, but it might be partially offset by the fact that, for example, KSF has a field elevation of 977ft. I would certainly be interested to find out what the max range of the RJ70"ER" with a sensible load out of LCY is, particularly as two appear to be up for grabs.


I just had a look into the RJ70 issue - 12 have been built, one has since crashed (1254, 1258, 1260 and 1267 are of the ER subtype)

1223 SE-DJX Transwede opf AirOne
1224 SE-DJY Transwede
1225 SE-DJZ Transwede opf AirOne
1228 VH-NJT National Jets
1229 G-BUFI MDLR Airlines (but apparently stored in the UK)
1230 VT-MDM MDLR Airlines
1252 available *ex Turkish
1254 EI-COQ Transwede opf SAS
1258 available *ex Euromanx
1260 available *ex Euromanx
1267 A6-RJK Royal Jet

Not sure about SEDJY. As the GOA TRN flights appear to have fallen through, it should be available for SAS.

[WHBM]

Just having a look at the new schedules for the summer, I hadn't quite appreciated the extent of the new based operators. Quite apart from the other airlines there are 8 British Airways and 7 Cityjet/Air France 146/RJ jets now assigned all day to LCY schedules. For an airport which hitherto had little in the way of based operators this seems a notable change. Presumably from next week, when the full new Cityjet schedules start, there will be pressures like we have not seen before.

Wondering how much will last though. With three major carriers on Zurich, where until recently there was only one, it's all a big change.

From 0700 to 0859 there are 64 movements scheduled, 32 per hour; apart from squeezing the exec jets at these times it seems very much on the limits both for runway and stand capacity. Does this put LCY in the top half dozen airports in the UK for peak hour movements ?

[virginblue]

By the way, I note that Helsinki is now in the poll section on LCY's website. So obviously a service could be operated from LCY's runway (assuming that the marketing folks have consulted withsome ops people).

Still in the poll section VIE, BCN and EXT. I would expect VIE und BCN to be BA Cityflyer's prime targets for new routes. Not sure if *A would react with a VIE service if this should happen.

As for BA Cityflyer, are all those 8 RJ100s busy from morning to evening or do they sit idle on the ground somewhere on the continent for longer periods of time? Even though their schedule is quite decent, I have difficulties seeing them operating 40 or so flights a day from LCY.

P.S.: Is there a complete schedule for LCY available on the net? This route-by-route menu at LCY#s website is a real pain.

[towser]

All Cityflyer aircraft work all day with no long stopovers elsewhere.

[Skipness One Echo]

Not that true. They tend to have rather long stopovers in Madrid and if I want to get from Zurich to London and back the timings with Swiss are way better. BA's last flight to ZRH is 1610 !
As for as aircraft are concerned the nightstoppers are :
EDI 2
GLA 2
LCY 2 ( 1 each EDI and ZRH early )
FRA 1
MAD 1
So 8 dedicated aircraft to London City but only really 2 based as it were. I believe the whole lot was crewed from Edinburgh but this is changing?
Anyone have an official date from when the callsign became "Cityflyer"?

[WHBM]

BA operations at LCY :

1 LCY 0700 0945 Zurich
1 Zurich 1025 1105 LCY 1340 1515 Glasgow
1 Glasgow 1550 1725 LCY 1800 1935 Glasgow

2 LCY 0705 0835 Edinburgh
2 Edinburgh 0720 0855 LCY 0930 1240 Milan MXP
2 Milan MXP 1420 1525 LCY 1610 1850 Zurich
2 Zurich 1930 2010 LCY

3 Frankfurt 0650 0725 LCY 0800 1030 Frankfurt
3 Frankfurt 1145 1225 LCY 1435 1710 Frankfurt
3 Frankfurt 1805 1845 LCY 1920 2155 Frankfurt

4 Edinburgh 0630 0810 LCY 0845 1010 Edinburgh
4 Edinburgh 1145 1315 LCY 1350 1520 Edinburgh
4 Edinburgh 1555 1730 LCY 1805 1940 Edinburgh

5 Glasgow 0700 0840 LCY 0915 1050 Glasgow
5 Glasgow 1225 1400 LCY 1435 1720 Zurich
5 Zurich 1800 1845 LCY 1920 2055 Glasgow

6 Madrid 0740 0920 LCY 0955 1335 Madrid
6 Madrid 1630 1810 LCY 1845 2225 Madrid

7 Glasgow 0830 1005 LCY 1040 1315 Zurich
7 Zurich 1540 1625 LCY 1700 1835 Edinburgh
7 Edinburgh 1910 2040 LCY

8 Edinburgh 0915 1050 LCY 1140 1315 Edinburgh
8 Edinburgh 1350 1525 LCY 1600 1730 Edinburgh
8 Edinburgh 1805 1940 LCY 2015 2140 Edinburgh

Sorry about the format best I can do quickly.

[WHBM]

And here's Air France / Cityjet if interested :

1 LCY 0700 0820 Edinburgh
1 Edinburgh 0855 1020 LCY 1050 1335 Zurich
1 Zurich 1420 1510 LCY 1540 1700 Dublin
1 Dublin 1800 1915 LCY 1945 2230 Geneva

2 Paris ORY 0700 0700 LCY 0730 0855 Dublin
2 Dublin 1535 1650 LCY 1720 1840 Dublin

3 Zurich 0640 0730 LCY 0800 1025 Paris ORY
3 Paris ORY 1100 1115 LCY 1145 1405 Paris ORY
3 Paris ORY 1450 1455 LCY 1525 1810 Zurich
3 Zurich 1905 1955 LCY 2025 2145 Dublin

4 Dublin 0645 0805 LCY 0835 0955 Dublin
4 Dublin 1220 1345 LCY 1415 1730 Nice
4 Nice 1815 1925 LCY 1955 2240 Zurich

5 Paris ORY 0825 0835 LCY 0905 1125 Paris ORY
5 Paris ORY 1255 1320 LCY 1350 1635 Geneva
5 Geneva 1715 1800 LCY 1830 2055 Paris ORY

6 Geneva 0755 0840 LCY 0910 1155 Geneva
6 Geneva 1315 1400 LCY 1430 1820 Madrid
6 Madrid 1910 2050 LCY

7 Dublin 0730 0900 LCY 0930 1320 Madrid
7 Madrid 1410 1545 LCY 1615 1830 Paris ORY
7 Paris ORY 1905 1925 LCY 1955 2220 Paris ORY

[virginblue]

Hmmm, not exactly brilliant aircraft utilisation, me thinks. What is the situation with aircraft #9 and #10 ? Ops reserve and maintenance?

[Tandemrotor]

What aircraft 9 and 10?

[virginblue]

jethro's fleet listings says that they have ten aircraft:

GBXAR BAe RJ100 E3289 Union Flag
GBXAS BAe RJ100 E3301 Union Flag
GBZAT BAe RJ100 E3320 Union Flag
GBZAU BAe RJ100 E3229 Union Flag
GBZAV BAe RJ100 E3331 Union Flag
GBZAW BAe RJ100 E3354 Union Flag
GBZAX BAe RJ100 E3356 Union Flag
GBZAY BAe RJ100 E3368 Union Flag
GBZAZ BAe RJ100 E3369 Union Flag
GCFAA BAe RJ100 E3373 Union Flag

[towser]

G-BXAR been returned.

[4468]

virginblue

Do you believe everything you read? :rolleyes:

[Manston Airport]

Cityflyer have 10 BAe RJ 1000:

ARJ100G-BXAR
ARJ100 G-BXAS
ARJ100 G-BZAT
ARJ100 G-BZAU
ARJ100 G-BZAV
ARJ100 G-BZAW
ARJ100 G-BZAX
ARJ100 G-BZAY
ARJ100 G-BZAZ
ARJ100 G-CFAA

:ok:

Wonder what Aircraft could do LCY-HEL,Could the ARJ100 do it or maybe a EMB 170 LR?

Regards
James

[Tandemrotor]

Cityflyer have 10 BAe RJ 1000:
(What is an RJ 1000??)

As you have already been told.

No they don't. :8

[virginblue]

Well, all I can say that three independent fleet listings - that tend to be rather reliable - report ten aircraft with BA Cityflyer. If this inaccurate, I wold be interested to hear what aircraft other than those that have been with Swiss for quite some time now have left the fleet and where they currently are.

This, by the way, is an ad placed by BA Cityflyer last Tuesday:

BA CityFlyer
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONTROLLERS placed on: 03/04/2007
...
This is an exciting opportunity to join the operations team at BA CityFlyer working to deliver undisputable operational excellence. BA CityFlyer is a new subsidiary of BA Plc and will operate a fleet of 10 RJ100 aircraft out of London City Airport flying to domestic and European destinations....

[Skipness One Echo]

They used to have 16 RJ100s and 4 BAe146s, 13 J41s, 10+ Dash 8s, 30+ ERJ145s, several ATR42s / 72s and a single SF340. Put that lot together and you get = 10 RJ100s of which you will fly 8.

[towser]

At the moment its only 9 RJ100's . 1 is going back in around 6 months and 2 smaller ones in the pipeline to arrive about then so eventually fleet will be 10.

[WHBM]

Hmmm, not exactly brilliant aircraft utilisation, me thinks.
Anyone operating at LCY will tell you that you cover all your overheads and hopefully make some money with an aircraft there on one morning rotation and one evening rotation. If the route is short you can maybe get two worthwhile evening round trips.

The rest of the day you will hope to cover your direct costs if you can. 11 am is normally dead time financially. So it's not like the LCCs down the road at Stansted at all. It can be most cost effective to stand the aircraft down during the day.

You will notice there are not that many factory-new aircraft in use, where the need to recover high time-based leasing costs are paramount. VLM are the past masters at managing the cost balance here.

[virginblue]

I see your point and agree with your rule of thumb, but don't think that BA will be fine just filling their not exactly inexpensive to operate RJ100s on two daily flights (morning in, evening out). The assumption would be that indeed those two flights are a gold-mine. On routes with competition and excess capacity (ZRH, GVA, MIL, FRA, EDI etc. etc.) I tend to believe that it is difficult for BA to make the rule of thumb work. I regularly check the fares on the FRA-LCY route, for example, and BA's fares are quite reasonable, indicating that BA is not able to syphon off just the cream.
I guess it pretty much depends on individual routes. VLM and EAE pulled the DUS/MGL route because they could only operate two daily flights (morning in, evening out) with decent loads. The same was true for most of the EW routes to Germany. VLM tried to trigger demand by selling cheaper tickets on their late morning and early afternoon flight without lasting success (despite operating LH code-shares, offering Miles&More and having a monopoly on that route). Then they cut back to thrice daily (like LPL now....) and struggled on for a while before eventually scrapping the route because they simply had not enough aircraft utilisation (so they told me). The problem was that they had no chance to make use of the aircraft when it did not make money to/from LCY because they had no network at the other end.

[Tandemrotor]

virginblue

As far as checking ticket prices is concerned. Club loads from LCY to FRA are very healthy indeed. Which presumably is why it normally costs more to fly to FRA in BA club from LCY, than it does from LHR! :rolleyes:

Your other points are extremely well founded however!

[WHBM]

Liverpool on VLM is down to twice daily now at LCY, it also no longer has its own aircraft but uses an Antwerp-based aircraft which operates "wrong way round" from London City, ie northbound first, then back southbound, which gives an first arrival in London at 1000. Apparently the route has been hit by improvements in reliability on the railway, but to a much greater extent than Manchester.

[Manston Airport]

Antwerp-based aircraft

How many Fokker 50 do VLM base at LCY? Do you think when the A318 can park at LCY BA Cityflyer will buy some?

Regards
James

[virginblue]

VLM bases no aircraft at LCY at all. They are all inbound first thing in the morning.

Generally speaking, LCY is an inbound-market. Until recently, there were only two nightstoppers at the airport for early morning departures to EDI and ORY.

In addition to the fact that LCY is an inbound-market, the time difference also allows for a reasonably early first departure from LCY to the continent without night-stopping aircraft. Despite overnighting elsewhere, quite a few flights leave for the continent 0800ish

[WHBM]

VLM's overall schedules require 18 aircraft, all of which come through London City at some time during the day, plus they do a lot of ACMI charters round Europe. None of their aircraft overnight at London City, and VLM have never done so.

Two BA RJ100, two Swiss RJ100, one Cityjet RJ100 and one Scot Do328 are the overnighters this summer. The Scot acts as a spare aircraft until 1700 (I can see the morning Edinburgh return flight that Cityjet operate for Scot reverting to this aircraft fairly soon).

An early departure is 0730 Cityjet to Dublin (hooray ! at last) and this is operated with an aircraft which starts at Paris at 0700 and is into LCY at 0700. It is interesting to speculate what would change if the UK and Continental time were the same.

[turnipgreen]

Bit of a critical mass of early morning departures building up then at LCY. Probably what it needs to make them work and get people thinking of flying out of there early.

[WHBM]

Well we have had a week or two now with what must be the highest movement rate the airport has had.

If I were to say that the go-around rate I have noticed seems to have risen notably, would there be disagreement ?

[virginblue]

How has the situation at security and in the departure lounge at peak times been?

[AlanM]

If I were to say that the go-around rate I have noticed seems to have risen notably, would there be disagreement ?

I think I would disagree.

Well, I only saw one all morning when on Thames - and the Lufty had no airbrakes and went around at 4nm eventually to LHR. Didn't see any yesterday morning(apart from the Eastflight who was trg and doing go-arounds x10!)

It is something that can be expected when you are operating at higher capacities, as controllers and pilots push harder to increase the movement rate. A go-around is a neccesary evil and acceptable risk when working balls out with a single runway. Esp on runway 10 of course when all it takes is a slow 180/backtrack.

I arrived at 0650L this morning, and inbound no 6 was already in the sequence. I don't remember there being a gap on ins/outs until 1000Lish.

[turnipgreen]

How has the situation at security and in the departure lounge at peak times been?

not too bad when i flew to MUC on wednesday. I checked in with 20 minutes to go, got through security. Had time to buy something in the duty free shop and then got on the bus to the plane. All fairly smooth. Landed back that evening dead on time and was home shortly after!