Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
738's "not Viable" For Jersey Routes  
User currently offlineJerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 607 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

According to this from the BBC, Thomsonfly are reducing their services to JER because its new aircraft (738s) are not commercially viable, due to the "operational limitations" at Jersey.

Apparently they need a longer runway. The flights are only a few hundred miles long so this does not seem right to me. A more obvious explanation would be that the new aircraft are bigger than those being replaced and so more difficult to fill.

Does anyone have more insight on this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/jersey/7033959.stm

[Edited 2007-10-09 05:56:03]

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1207 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Interesting. I was in JER a few weeks ago and saw a 738 of XL Airways and I bet they weren't flying out empty...

Certainly what TOM mean is that they can't fill a 738. I don't see any other reason.



Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

JER's runway is 5,597ft. Didn't BA use 752s from LHR to JER? I believe that the 752 generally has a better climb-out rate. Perhaps SpeedbirdEGJJ could tell us whether the 752s were payload restricted.

I believe that FR will have payload restrictions on flights from BHD (6,000ft).

I wonder what restrictions CO has on its 73G-operated non-stop flights from SNA to EWR - considering SNA's 5,701ft runway and that SNA-EWR would be 4 1/2+ hours.

WN and XL/P9 used to fly 737s from DET - and that has a 5,090ft runway. Anyone know whether the flights were load restricted?

[Edited 2007-10-09 06:21:36]


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
JER's runway is 5,597ft. Didn't BA use 752s from LHR to JER? I believe that the 752 generally has a better climb-out rate. Perhaps SpeedbirdEGJJ could tell us whether the 752s were payload restricted.

BA used to use the Tristar in there believe it or not.

I took a BA 735 in and out of there in June and can confirm - it is VERY short.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
I took a BA 735 in and out of there in June and can confirm - it is VERY short.

I've flown a BA 735 from there too.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineSpeedbirdEGJJ From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 429 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
Perhaps SpeedbirdEGJJ could tell us whether the 752s were payload restricted.

Hello James, No the 757's were not payload resticted mainly due to the relatively light take off weight - that and the fact they clim like a rocket  Wink

Its interesting to note that FR used to operate a 732 service from DUB on a summer saturday but stopped for the same reasons that TOM have cited.

XL have infact operated 738's out of JER, as did Helios for a while and HV, but they stop for fuel enroute for anything longer than PMI etc. Infact the breaking point for an Astreaus operated 73G charter series to Banjul was the fact it had to stop both ways.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
BA used to use the Tristar in there believe it or not.

Chris once and only once an L1011 came here, it way to clear the backlog after a period of heavy fog - well before my time i might add, but i believe they had a whole host of problems with infrastructure etc. This was the main reason behind SATA been refused A310 ops in here during the busy Christmas period in 2005.

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 1):
Certainly what TOM mean is that they can't fill a 738. I don't see any other reason

Not really - its the same reason we (BA) pulled out of GCI, TOM cant operate a 738 out of here year round without payload restrictions that hamper the routes performance, likewise we couldn't send a 735 to GCI.


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

SpeedbirdEGJJ: taking your experience in Jersey and the restrictions, what would you say would be the answer to the following, including the hot temperature during the summer:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
I wonder what restrictions CO has on its 73G-operated non-stop flights from SNA to EWR - considering SNA's 5,701ft runway and that SNA-EWR would be 4 1/2+ hours.



"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineRyanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

It’s probably more due to the braking distance for the 738 at JER rather than takeoff performance. B738 has quite limiting braking factors on shorter runways with heavier loads, it was a problem at LBA a few years ago when then Britannia used to operate short hauls which led them to withdraw the 738 from LBA, mainly due to available landing distance and sufficient brake temperature warm-up in the summer with high loads. Ryanair don't have a problem at LBA due to the lighter weight of their short distance flights to/from DUB.

TOM have CFM56-7B27 rated engines on their 738s which I'm sure could get them out of JER with not too much trouble, I believe its mainly the stopping distance on the landing run with the 738 that is the main factor at JER.


User currently offlineCaptainsimon From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 3787 times:

The B738 should be able to technically handle Jerseys runway within SOP for both T/O and landing.
I don't think this pull out of Jersey is due to the abilities of the aircraft.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 24061 posts, RR: 23
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 3):
I took a BA 735 in and out of there in June and can confirm - it is VERY short.



Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 8):
The B738 should be able to technically handle Jerseys runway within SOP for both T/O and landing.

737-800s operate from SDU in Rio de Janeiro, although only on the 198 nm sector to CGH. The SDU runway is only 4341 ft., more than 1000 ft. shorter than JER's 5597 ft, and ends in water at both ends. And Rio is usually a little warmer than JER.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © André Martinis
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fabio Laranjeira - Contato Radar



User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21415 posts, RR: 60
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3271 times:

Quoting Ryanair737 (Reply 7):
It’s probably more due to the braking distance for the 738 at JER rather than takeoff performance.

BUR is higher and often much hotter than Jersey, and the runway used for landing is almost as short. A320s, 737NG, MD80, 737 classic, RJs and cargo A310s land there. Can't see the 738 being runway limited at JER in terms of landing, but there may be some geographic reasons?



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineSpeedbirdegjj From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 429 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
BUR is higher and often much hotter than Jersey, and the runway used for landing is almost as short. A320s, 737NG, MD80, 737 classic, RJs and cargo A310s land there. Can't see the 738 being runway limited at JER in terms of landing, but there may be some geographic reasons?



Quoting Ryanair737 (Reply 7):
TOM have CFM56-7B27 rated engines on their 738s which I'm sure could get them out of JER with not too much trouble, I believe its mainly the stopping distance on the landing run with the 738 that is the main factor at JER.



Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 8):
The B738 should be able to technically handle Jerseys runway within SOP for both T/O and landing.
I don't think this pull out of Jersey is due to the abilities of the aircraft.

I really dont know then. All I can add is that those of you who have experienced JER know how tight its appears at times, certainly on those beloved wet windy nights landing towards the sea. Likewise a full -400 seems to take up plenty of runway on departure in the summer. However im not a pilot, nor an engineer so as to whether or not its technically possible I dont know, but as verteran of over 250 landings at JER, IMHO it would get a little 'sporting' in a full -800 in the wet.


User currently offlineAndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1003 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2960 times:

When I worked at BMA/BA years ago, the DC-9-10s were operated into JER with an exemption from the CAA. The -30s were OK because they were a little slower over the hedge due the leading edge slat and they had upgrade brakes, but the -10s were an issue. If I remember correctly, the CAA wouldn't allow the use of reversers to be considered when calculating landing / accellerate/stop distances and this was an issue with JER's length on a wet runway for the -10. This was one of [many] factors that influenced the selection of the 737-300/-400 over the MD-80 series to replace the DC-9. Even so, again if I remember correctly the -400 was payload restricted to the further destinations like GLA and EDI. Ironically, after BM decided the MD-80 was not viable for JER ops, Transwede started operating MD-80s to ARN - but of course, they operated under a different authority!

I suspect that the 738 has some sort of issues at JER, broadly similar to those above.

A


User currently offline757lgw From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 152 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
I believe that FR will have payload restrictions on flights from BHD (6,000ft).

Yes this is correct there is no way we can get out of BHD with a full load of passnegers it is the same at LDY which is 80ft longer than BHD, at LDY we can have an absolote maximum of 141 passengers out of the 189 seats.

Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 8):
The B738 should be able to technically handle Jerseys runway within SOP for both T/O and landing.
I don't think this pull out of Jersey is due to the abilities of the aircraft.

We i disagree with you , i see the probelms we have with our -800 on runways that are longer than JER so i can completly see how the -800 is impractical for JER, it would have to go near on empty. I beleive the breaking distances are the main problem with the -800. While it can get airbourne with higher weights on shorter runways it can not land and succesfully break on them.


User currently offlineRyanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2802 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 10):
BUR is higher and often much hotter than Jersey, and the runway used for landing is almost as short.

BUR has 6,886 feet of runway, JER has 5,597 feet. JER has more than 1000 feet less in runway length than BUR so therefore your statement is void.

Quoting 757lgw (Reply 13):
I beleive the breaking distances are the main problem with the -800. While it can get airbourne with higher weights on shorter runways it can not land and succesfully break on them.

Yep that is correct. That is the reason which I said before that Britannia pulled out of LBA a few years ago with the the 738, it was the the very same reason and they were operating on full loads during the summer. LBA has even more runway length available than JER so you can see why JER has problems with the 738.


User currently offlineCaptainsimon From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 127 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting Speedbirdegjj (Reply 11):
IMHO it would get a little 'sporting' in a full -800 in the wet.

You want to land at Blackpool then in the rain with a crosswind! LOL


User currently offlineRyanair737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 15):
You want to land at Blackpool then in the rain with a crosswind! LOL

I think RYR are pax restricted to GRO from BLK as well, although I could be wrong - that is what I heard.

[Edited 2007-10-10 09:23:49]

User currently offlineFalcon Flyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2606 times:

Quoting Captainsimon (Reply 8):
I don't think this pull out of Jersey is due to the abilities of the aircraft.

I agree. Is it possibly related to JER being a lower yield destination ? Maybe some our Channel Island friends can jump in.



My definition of cool ? Not trying so hard to be cool.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21415 posts, RR: 60
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2511 times:

Quoting Ryanair737 (Reply 14):
BUR has 6,886 feet of runway, JER has 5,597 feet. JER has more than 1000 feet less in runway length than BUR so therefore your statement is void.

Sorry, but typically planes land on the 5801 foot runway (8/26), NOT the 6800 footer (15/33). It is only reversed during adverse wind conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Hope_Airport

And 8/26 has a pesky 7000 foot mountain range at the far east end of it, just for fun, so an aborted landing needs a pretty decent climbout performance.

Don't "void" people's statements before doing a little research to see if you are right. Saves embarrassment...  

edit: fixed link

[Edited 2007-10-10 10:00:11]


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineBananaBoY From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1570 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):
Perhaps SpeedbirdEGJJ could tell us whether the 752s were payload restricted.

Also saw XL 757 on a charter to RHO from there - looked pretty full. Incredible performance, when you think about it.


Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2253 times:

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):

WN and XL/P9 used to fly 737s from DET - and that has a 5,090ft runway. Anyone know whether the flights were load restricted?

Remember, those flights were both short haul and using lighter aircraft.

Quoting Pe@rson (Reply 2):

I wonder what restrictions CO has on its 73G-operated non-stop flights from SNA to EWR - considering SNA's 5,701ft runway and that SNA-EWR would be 4 1/2+ hours.

None that I know of, but that is the -700, not the -800. AQ also flies SNA-OGG/HNL with the 73W, which requires even higher weights because of the jet stream.

Quoting Ryanair737 (Reply 14):

BUR has 6,886 feet of runway, JER has 5,597 feet. JER has more than 1000 feet less in runway length than BUR so therefore your statement is void.

The statement was about the landing, not take off runway.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineSpeedbirdegjj From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 429 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Quoting Falcon Flyer (Reply 11):
I agree. Is it possibly related to JER being a lower yield destination ? Maybe some our Channel Island friends can jump in.

JER itself isnt a low yielding destination, Its more a case of the LCC's chasing volume which has forced the markets price expectations down. I use the TOM DSA route quite often when returning home to watch football and have never paid more than £50 rtn including tax. The aircraft is however always busy, but im not sure how this yield/volume ratio stacks up against some of their other routes.

On the other hand JER is very high yielding for BA, with often as many as 20-30 people paying the full J rate on the 7am departure (£415 inc) so it cant really be argued that the Island itself is low yielding.

I did post a lengthy reply on my thoughts on this yesterday but it appears to have dissappeared, but in summary I basically concluded that I have no doubt you would struggle to operate a -800 year round (i've got 8 years airlines experience in JER in both ops and commercial). However, this factors aside I am also sceptical as to whether TOM could profitably operate and aircraft that large on a routes that are low yielding, albeit as a result of the benchmarks they set themselves.


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2036 times:

Sounds like they don't want to operate the full short field package on thier 738... I'm assuming that the recently built ones have atleast the parts of the package Boeing found to be "free" performance additions. Which just leaves things like the sealed flaps and some other small bits for the "costs more MX time and money, for more takeoff/landing performance" IIRC. Certainly makes sense as a subfleet of special 738's just adds cost and headaches, for all that its "possible" to get a good bit better field performance.

But yes, its likely that the airport has a nasty problem of flights you can do with the 738 from it... would be better done by oh say Q400/RJ service with higher frequency and easier control over loads (easier to dump one flight a day rather than 1/3 of a 737). The flights better done with the 738... are not possible w/o higher MTOW under those conditons.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
First "major" Problems For DeHavilland/Bombardier? posted Fri Sep 14 2007 23:33:44 by Abletofly
AR Flight "postponed" And Not "cancelled"?!? posted Wed Aug 8 2007 17:44:52 by USADreamliner
"Natural" Length For The A380? posted Thu Jul 19 2007 04:25:39 by A380900
Emirates Confirmed "No Low-cost For Us" posted Wed Jul 4 2007 18:12:30 by UAEflyer
Close Call For "Daisy" posted Mon Jun 4 2007 10:20:41 by Scooter01
SBA's New Terminal "Cleared For Takeoff" posted Sun Jun 3 2007 03:41:55 by Boston92
Why Not "Kangaroo" Service Via South Asia? posted Tue May 15 2007 14:53:44 by Flight209
Next "new" Customer For B787 posted Tue Apr 3 2007 19:45:43 by Mptpa
Is Airbus "Saving Up" Orders For Airshow Yet? posted Sat Mar 17 2007 13:28:49 by Art
Not-so "confirmed" FF Seats posted Mon Feb 12 2007 18:16:17 by Sampa737