Eastern Airways New Aircraft

[Fly Airways]

Eastern Airways has begun flights between Norwich and Aberdeen with the ERJ135 and will introduce the Jetstream J41 on its NWI-EDI flights from the Winter timetable.

Good luck to Eastern Airways!

[Fizze]

The flight between Norwich-Aberdeen is a wetlease hired from the new Swedish airline Cityairline for 6 month ( I think). they are based in Gothenburg sweden. They also operate another Emb-135 between Gothenburg-Manchester. :)

[RAFAT]

This is indeed true. The aircraft has just been released from a bmi Regional wetlease.

[wysiwyg]

Does this mean that they have given up on ideas of operating Saab 340's?

[FlyboyUK]

One of BRAL's J41's, G-MAJL has was painted white some months ago in anticipation of Eastern purchasing it. Some BRAL crews are now rostered to operate the norwich-ediburgh service until the eastern guys are fully trained up.

[U R NumberOne]

This has all come about following the sad demise of Gill who competed with EZE on the ABZ-NWI route. Eastern leased a Skyways FK50 for a couple of weeks but this has now been replaced by the 135 - which could be for a long period I heard today.

I'm guessing EZE don't fancy going head-to-head with Brymon on the ABZ-NCL to complete the English East Coast set of routes from Aberdeen!

[Mister Geezer]

Really pleased to hear that EZE are expanding into Jet ops, in a time where the whole industry is going through a bleak time.

I wish them every success.

MG :)

[Spoonbill]

Good news indeed! :D
NWI - ABZ in 55 mins at F370 - who would have ever thought it :eek:
We understand that the J41 will be on this route as well, operating a fourth service in between the NWI/EDI/NWI runs.
EZE have told Norwich airport management that they may well cut back on the frequency of the EDI and MAN services, (presently 3 times daily return), due to the introduction of bigger a/c (EDI and ABZ), and MAN due to the economic climate.
Anyway, let's hope it continues to be succesful for all. :)

[MASOR Monkey]

Anybody at Eastern got any comments on the request from Lon Mil for the NWI - ABZ to join at DOGGA/SILVA and continue as GAT?

[tightturnaround]

Sponbill, regards the Embraer..glad you see this as good news. It seems feedback for EZE has been fantastic....in general people who have used this route and seen nothing other than turboprops for years are generally VERY impressed with the new little JungleJet.

EZE's winter timetable is complete and is actually pubished already...see the website. As you say frequency has been cut on some routes...NWIABZ which is currently 6 daily on 32s/135s goes down to just 4 daily, all however are now 135 ops. GMAJL (J41) is planned to be flying for the start of the new schedule (28th), NWIEDI going down to 3 daily from 4....again, however...all J41 flights instead of the 32 so seats available actually increases...this should help with the monday morning/friday evening problems where the 32 is ALWAYS chocka! The 41 is also slightly quicker. NWIMAN is the only real casualty...down to 3 daily (from 4), and staying on the 32....the chopped flights are mid-morning NWI v.

The word is 2 32's are to be on permanent 'airport standy' at HUY/NWI as rescue aircraft to pick up the schedule if the 135 or 41 fall down in NWI/MAN/EDI. Meanwhile looks like the 12th 31/32 is confirmed and will be delivered soon (from where?).

In reply to MASOR Monkey.....from what I gather Lndon mil weren't too happy with the 135 routeing NWI-ABZ direct at the much higher alt (350 I think)... as the J32's do. Hence the change to airways via SILVA. Anyone have any more news?web site (http://www.easternairways.co.uk)

[MASOR Monkey]

Thanks for the info, Tightturnaround.
It seems that the OAT route has now been sanctioned, so 'Direct Aberdeen' is on again. After saying that, this afternoons flight insisted on joining at SILVA, despite being offered 'dct ADN' twice. Not sure if there may be an advantage in the SILVA join, with regards to getting to cruise alt quicker. Depends on the traffic sitch at the time, and who is in the seat at Lon Mil I think, but the direct route is available. ;)

[U R NumberOne]

For what it's worth the last southbound flight yesterday requested to route on the airway as per his flight plan. Maybe it depends on the particular crew's preference?

[10W]

MASOR Monkey

Direct route may be OK to begin with, but who are you expecting to take the aircraft when it leaves your patch ?? It ain't going to be ScACC Civil, particularly if the sector is busy with GAT, or if there is a lot of military activity between NWI and ABZ!! Similarly, we don't want to become embroiled in passing estimates and handovers and the like for Southbound flights. Not that we don't like talking to you guys, simply that we have more pressing things to be going on with usually.

That's why GAT has to file on UARs as per the UK AIP. Now if it goes straight between yourselves and ScATCC Mil, then fair enough. Is that the plan ??

[Data Dad]

Bring back Border Radar!!!! :D :D :D :D

[The Fat Controller]

As of tomorrow the ERJ 135/145 will be treated as "negative RVSM" so it's likely to be goodbye FL370, hello 270/280.
Also, this afternoon the pilot refused direct ADN, and quite wisely so as there was loads of OAT north of NEW.
Having been involved as a ScACC sector controller for the last 5 days,the best way is join at SILVA-UL602-NEW-UR38-FINDO-UP600/P600-ADN and vice-versa southbound to leave at SILVA, and the pilots seem happy with this.
A final note of sarcasm to the LATCC controller who could not find his strip on the southbound at FL290 this mid-afternoon, have a look in the "it's leaving at SILVA I'll forget about it pile", you are the first one in 4 days who wasn't expecting to work it !!

[chiglet]

Data Daddy,
Border Radar is still with us, except that it is now called "Pennine Radar". Unfortunately Pennines' airspace tops out at FL245 [xcpt on UL602/ FL250] so we can't work the E135s, but we DO work all the J32s
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[Data Dad]

Ahhh Chiglet....

but Penine doesnt provide a RAS to within 40 miles of the Ice Station does it? Now Border Radar did....

DD

[MASOR Monkey]

10Wthanks for the comments, always good to hear the problems that 'the other end' have, and I accept their validity totaly. Unfortunately, someone is going to have to talk to us at some stage, whether it be yourselves or North Sea. (Unless, of course, North Sea are willing to hand them direct to Norwich :D ). Equally, a joining clearance needs to obtained on the way up. Whether it be from North Sea at SILVA, or Montrose at FAMBO/NEW will remain to be seen, however I reckon any are equally possible in the next few days, till things settle down. Just for info, North Sea (understandably) wouldn't give me a clearance at SILVA this evening, because he had 3 strips on the same flight :eek: :rolleyes: :confused: . Came as a surprise to me, because the flightplan I was looking at was OAT EGSH dct EGPD. Ergo, call Montrose ATSA for join/crossing/whatever I could get at FAMBO. :p

Keep PPRuNe'ing all and hi to Chiglet. Must get me a visit up there one day, what do you reckon? :)

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: MASOR Monkey ]
First time for spelling, and then to add this comment (Which I didn't realise was not automatically generated!)

[ 17 October 2001: Message edited by: MASOR Monkey ]

[U R NumberOne]

Hi DD,

Maybe we've just found a use for the couple of spare radar positions down the room!

Now all we need is a radar feed from somwhere in the borders and to lift the 40nm limit on the APR ticket and we're in business. :D

[Data Dad]

No 1....spiffing idea! Get the users to pay us directly for the service rather than watch it go in the national pot... a feed from NT? After all they owe us - we've provided them with enough ATCO's after all :D :D :D

[BuzzLightyear]

Dad + No.1

Why bother lifting your 40 mile limit when there are about 40 perfectly qualified AREA RADAR controllers in the room? They are all rated to work as an autonomous unit. It is only due to "ring fencing" from a certain other largish Scottish unit that we have the ridiculous situation where aircraft leave "The Station", get transferred to that unit, who provide it with a RAS if they are lucky, for 50 miles or so and then they transfer it back to another part of our operation.

You know as well as I do that we could provide the aircraft with a direct route, under RAS instead of the FIS that they would routinely recieve from the aforementioned unit, for the whole flight, only we are not allowed to do it.

P.S. BWL et al, surely the fuel burn in an ATP at FL70 ain't that different to that at FL130. ;) ;) ;)

[HugMonster]

WRONG.

There is a HUGE difference in any turbine engines' fuel burns from FL40-70-130-200.

[Bart]

Hug Monster

I think the comment was made in jest but if you want to be so smug lets look at some numbers.

I have not flown turboprops for a while so forgive me for using a B757 flight plan I have to hand.

TFS-LGW 3hours 52 mins

Burn at 350 13462
Burn at 310 13900

Dfference of 438 kgs works out at around 110 kgs an hour, thats about 3%, hardly HUGE. So if a 757 can drop 4000 feet and burn an extra 110 a ATP won't burn much extra at all (I would hope!!).

The ATC in the UK is second to none so maybe we should leave them to their airspace debate without making without SMART comments.

That said it would be nice if we could have a RAS off Scottish in the open FIR.

By the way what does any of this have to do with Eastern's new toy.

:D :D :D

[HugMonster]

If you've really forgotten all your basic atmospheric physics, let me remind you that there's a huge difference in the pressure differential between FL70-110 and the differential between FL310-350. Pressure lapse is not a constant rate, therefore the partial pressure of oxygen (which is fairly desirable for purposes of burning fuel) does not decay at a constant rate. It drops very rapidly at lower levels in the atmosphere, and then tails off exponentially.

Therefore your comparison with your 757 books is totally invalid.

I've just checked my ATR books.

At 21.5 tons, ISA, the burn at FL80 is 420 kg/eng/hr. That decreases by 10% at FL 120 to 383 kg/eng/hr, and by 26% to 312 kg/eng/hr at FL200.

If you think that an increase in fuel burn and consequently fuel costs of even a magnitude of 10% is insignificant, you have no idea at all about how small airlines' budgetting, finances and organisation works.

[ 20 October 2001: Message edited by: HugMonster ]

[AyrTC]

Buzz I think your unit should concentrate on giving your APC RAD guys full APC tickets so that in the middle of the night a certain largish unit in Scotland is not pi$$ing about with pseudo "sid,s" and MSL's.

AyrTC :D :D :D :D :D

[Bart]

Huggy old chap

A whole 38 kgs an hour per eng difference for Fl 80 - Fl 120, at £120 a ton that makes it £9.12 more expensive .

That is really HUGE. It stikes me that you are the sort who would sit in turbulance making pasengers ill so save 100 kgs of gas.

I seem to remembr from my turboprop days the actual fuel flow differed hardly any between Fl 100 and Fl 150.

Anyway all this is not really my point and I'm not going to get into anymore debate over this. My point is don't be so nasty to our ATCO friends they know more about this aviation lark than somtimes us drivers give them credit for and IMHO they do a great job. If you don't agree with me try flying around Greece where they are bloody hopeless.

Sorry about not having any turboprop numbers to quote but I can't be arsed going up to the attic to dust off the old books.

:D :D

[Data Dad]

AyrTC....had a "full" APC ticket but the accountants decreed that newbies wouldn't get them...so they took mine (and others) away = the procedure gets dumbed down to the lowest common level.

Buzz does have a valid point... wouldn't your Moray/Heb guys and gals not rather concentrate on the higher level stuff?

However, this is kind of getting away from the EZE Embraer :eek:

[HugMonster]

Bart, several points:-

Small operators can't get the sort of prices on fuel you quote. Therefore, the price is rather higher for Eastern than you appear to think.

If you budget a certain amount for anything in a tight operation, and a significant item (such as fuel) actually costs you 10% more, then you're in trouble. Or hasn't the idea of running to a budget ever occurred to you?

Dunno what turboprops you flew but an ATR the burn at ISA, FL 100 = 410 kg/eng/hr. At FL160 it's 359. Therefore on an hour's sector you will burn 102 kg more. Do that three times a day, seven times a week and the difference is 2,142 kg., or approx 2680 lt. At 15p per litre, that's over £400 more on your costs.

I don't particularly care how "I strike you", since you don't know me, but you still feel safe in making assumptions. Do you always make wild assumptions on the basis of no evidence at all? Because if so, your flying technique must be sort of interesting. For what it's worth, my priorities when flying are[list=1] Safety (after all, it should be everyone's priority) Legality (I'd always prefer to be safe than legal) Passenger comfort Expeditious conclusion to the flight (Although occasionally there will have to be some trade-off with confort - let's face it, you're not going to sit in the hold for 2 hours waiting for things to calm down on a slightly turbulent approach) Economy of operation (If I can save the company money, all other things being equal, by climbing to take advantage of better fuel burn, or descending to get out of a stonking headwind, I'll do it.)[/list=a]
Finally, I don't recall being "nasty" to ATC. I am well aware that they know a fair amount about the subject. So what? I know quite a bit about life in an ATC unit, but I'd never presume to tell them their job. If misconceptions occur, you think there's something wrong with correcting them?

[Avoiding Action]

I'll but a pint for the EZE crew which insists on going airways at SILVA. The less GAT in the North Sea, the better. :D

Let us get on with our "High Energy Manoeuvres" in relative peace. I suspect Tay might get the second round in?

Will all this "high level via airways" chat leave the recent rumour of a new airway NCL dct ADN dead in the water? ;)

[chiglet]

AA,
Sorry, but I haven't got a map in front of me at this moment in time,but
"routing SILVA"
Then where? NEW? SAB?
As far as I am aware, [flames/corrections accepted] SILVA is on UL602, inbound NEW.
I fly EGSH....EGPD! Direct if poss. [That's why I cross B1, sorry Y70, 23nmE of OTR, 45nmE NEW DCT ADN.
It's called expedition/fuel efficient.
IF a RAS is aviliable, I will "gratefully" accept. Any lesser "service" [please note that word "Service"] is greatfully accepted.
I'm just an ATSA, but I [really] can add up
we aim to please, it keeps the cleaners happy

[The Fat Controller]

Some seem to have lost the plot on this thread !
Off-route in the UIR is only possible if the Montrose(ScACC) and London controllers are willing to take it upon themselves to co-ordinate against the military traffic, and speaking from the Montrose perspective, this is not a practical option except at weekends.
So, Chiglet, the option isn't there for EZE at their planned levels.
If, however the airline negotiated a service agreement with London and Scottish Mil, it may be possible to route direct, but always subject to their other tasks.
The route joining at SILVA then NEW-FINDO-ADN seems to work well and gives the paying passengers the protection of CAS all the way.
Finally the ADN-NEW-POL Airway is still very much under negotiation, and may well be with us in 2002(latest rumour).

[Avoiding Action]

Chiglet,

Empathise with you completely - I was just sounding off - it keeps the cleaners in our place happy too! Happy Flying (but watch out for the grey pointy things :D :D )

[BuzzLightyear]

OOPS!! Didn't mean to stir it guys, only a light banter!!

Ayrtc as Daddy says it ain't our unit's fault. Maybe if the local council would stop messing arounnd and let us open h24 that would let us have radar controllers all night.

Hugmonster
Don't get all upset now. You're no 1 is safety. Question which is safer, Radar Advisory Service or Flight Information Service? Which is quicker with less track miles, direct or via airways/advisory routes? Surely if I can provide a RAS and a direct route the two should kind of balance out, n'est pas? Even if it has to be done at a slightly less econimic level.

Give us a second to put my hard hat on!!!!

:D :D :D