easyJet in CIA using 33?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe...the country?
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
easyJet in CIA using 33?
Can any of you easy drivers explain why 33 is the preferred RWY for takeoff in CIA? Seems an awful long way to taxi just for a straight out departure.
In know 33 gives you a few more tonnes for takeoff but guys are using 33 and climbing to FL400, which tells me performance isnīt the issue.
(probably not a rumour, nor is it news. Iīll let the moderator categorise the post)
In know 33 gives you a few more tonnes for takeoff but guys are using 33 and climbing to FL400, which tells me performance isnīt the issue.
(probably not a rumour, nor is it news. Iīll let the moderator categorise the post)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of eJ's 737's have only got 20k engines which are quite restrictive on R15 at CIA. (Emergency turn required in case of engine failure on T/O)Their main competitor FR has 26k on the 800's (used to be more) and thus much less of a problem. Blame the Italians for building an airport in such a silly place! Perhaps the A319s will have better power to weight than those 300's and 700's.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe...the country?
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, I was expecting that answer but if they can climb to FL400 means that they have 50 pax on board i.e. light as a feather. So performance canīt always be the case.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EMA
Age: 56
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely true. Flew out of there just the other day. 22k aircraft (737-300). Even full power take off on 22k couldn't get us off Rwy 15 but a downrated 20k take-off with assumed thrust at 32 degrees got us off Rwy 33. Also manged to climb to FL360. Fairly full load. Purely performance related. No real advantage with Rwy 33 as SIDS all take you to the same place would save a few seconds maybe, but that lost waiting for your 33 departure.
Thanks for asking though.
Cheers.
Thanks for asking though.
Cheers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe...the country?
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand that, but the common denomonator is weight. The lighter you are, the better you climb on 1 engine and coincidentally climb on two engines to FL400.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: EMA
Age: 56
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes that's about it........but given that Rwy 15 is the more restrictive runway, and EJ aircraft are using Rwy 33 as it allows them to get away at their weight, then surely that means they are heavier, and are not carrying 50 pax and are not 'as light as a feather', cos if they were they would use Rwy 15.
So given they are heavier and are using a runway that is less restrictive and can still climb to FL400 then your theory of being lighter means you can climb higher, whilst true, may not be as comprehensive as you suspect. The EJ aircraft are heavier (which is why they use Rwy 33) but can still climb higher...strange eh?
So given they are heavier and are using a runway that is less restrictive and can still climb to FL400 then your theory of being lighter means you can climb higher, whilst true, may not be as comprehensive as you suspect. The EJ aircraft are heavier (which is why they use Rwy 33) but can still climb higher...strange eh?
