|
Originally Posted by azure70
(Post 9596496)
Its obvious Mt Majura is an impediment to the growth of Canberra Airport and should be removed.
A mining company in The Pilbara region of Western Australia has an airport located at 2100ft ASL. The mining company wanted to get rid of a charter operator utilising BAE146 aircraft in favour of a new operator using E-jets. High terrain at the end of the strip was a problem for the E-jets, so the mining company sent in the blast crew and heavy machinery and removed the mountain. Incidentally the mountain was full of high grade iron ore which was processed through the plant, so it was a win for everyone....except NJS. |
Better question......what is going on in Doha? |
Spot on Rad_Alt_Alive!
Performance ain't a problem. They (QR) go into a lot higher & shorter, around the world, on older less capable equipment (I do too). Canberra? Well their current approval for Australian Major cities is maxed-out but is "unlimited, to Regional Centres". Happy Landings :ok: |
The problem with YSCB is they forgot to build a wall around it to keep the politicians in....
|
#20 Source?
#20 Source?
Google red river in spanish I worked for them in another life :-) |
Originally Posted by Tuck Mach
(Post 9596332)
'The International Airline Activity report by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development showed, on average, each of the six flights from Wellington to Canberra in September held just 94 passengers. The Boeing 777 has 266 seats, meaning there was an average passenger load factor of just 35 per cent.' I say this because a niece recently visited me in Wellington flying from Canberra, and she said the aircraft appeared nearly full. |
I've flown it a couple of times and it was half to two-thirds full each time.
The rumour I've heard is that the extra leg from Canberra to Wellington made the entire route feasible. What would the incremental costs of that leg be? and how many more passengers would the route pick up by having the Wellington extension? |
Hahaha. They fly fully loaded out of Kabul and Kathmandu.. Canberra has no performance issues compared to those places... 3500 compared to LSALT of 16000 in KBL and i think its 29000 roughly around KTM.
|
Let's put some actual numbers on this. Apologies, data for B777 - 300ER. No data for B787/A350.
YSCB RWY 35 30C 0WIND Q1013 PACKS OFF MAX RTOW 294.1T [MAX STRUCTURAL TO WEIGHT IS 351.5T] FLAP5 AT 15C 301.9T F5 AT 0 C 303.5T [ENG A/I ON] F5 RWY 17: SAME ASSUMPTIONS 30C 316.8 F20 15C 325.2 F20 0C 327.9T F15 Hope that helps. |
Thanks for the figures, it gives some idea.
Here are are few points to note though: - Many Operators use flap 15 for TKOF on the B773. - There are also APU-Pack; Improved Climb & Bump options for TKOF to better the performance. - QR also operate a fleet of B777-200LR's which may be a consideration for such a run. - The 787 / 350 wings are a lot more efficient than this old duck. Happy Landings :ok: |
https://www.ausbt.com.au/qatar-airwa...rom-early-2018
Seems like this one was downgraded to a wishy washy/possibly/maybe idea of getting to CBR via SYD with an A350, in another year at best.... |
What's the issue with pushing Canberra traffic via Qantas who is the oneworld partner? Even with subsidies from governments or whoever, 20 or 30 pax to Canberra and back is hardly worth it?
Is this more a sneaky ploy to operate an extra Sydney to Doha 'via Canberra'. |
Canberra is a "Regional Port", considered under pax numbers as per Adelaide.
By them servicing these Regional Centres they're hoping to leverage more access into/out of the Major Ports of Sydney, Melbourne and start Brisbane, as the A380 is already on Syd and starting Melb soon. I've got my popcorn and comfortable chair :) Happy Landings :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 06:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.