dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2956 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 39188 times:
The first one is apparenty due in April 2011 ready for the Summer 2011 season commencing in May 2011. Whether that's still the case or delivery is still scheduled for then, I've not heard anything recently. TOM are getting airframe 46.
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
Crosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2623 posts, RR: 57
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 38806 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 6): The first one is apparenty due in April 2011 ready for the Summer 2011 season commencing in May 2011. Whether that's still the case or delivery is still scheduled for then, I've not heard anything recently. TOM are getting airframe 46.
From their press-release today, the first commercial service with the 787 for Thomson Airways will be January 2012.
johruk From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 171 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 35403 times:
Quoting EXTspotter (Reply 17): Exactly the same at BRS - the runway is too short, hence the aircraft depart weight limited. Even egypt and canaries charters have problems sometimes on the 737s and A320s for similar reasons.
Really? Do you mean they have had to stop en-route? or they are weight restricted before they start?
I am sure if CO can fly BRS-EWR direct for 7+ hours, with a full load, then a shorter hop to SSH, Canaries etc would be no problem.
Oh, and just to stand up for BRS (as I do!) there have been a few instances were the SFB flight has gone direct non stop on a 767, plus the occasional cruise charter has operated to BGI without a problem (OK so there were possibly less pax on the latter) so, I am sure the runway is fine....Now a A330-200 to DXB.... thats a whole other story.
extspotter From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 992 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 35101 times:
Johruk - I mean weight restricted. When XL used to do a lot of charters out to egypt on 738s, the weights on fuel were high to make it and the fact it was high density seating didn't help. In order to take off with the high weight (MTOW a lot of the time AFAIK) the entire runway from piano keys almost to piano keys was used as to reduce fuel burn to insure the aircraft could make it. I've heard it was similar on hteir other flights plus other charters suffered similar problems on their smaller types (not 757).
AF BE BY FR MV PD SZ U2 VZ DHC6, 8-3/4Q, 732/8, 763ER, A319, A380
Just wanted to check, as I was racking my brain to see if anyone of my customers had had a diversion on a flight ex BRS in the past 8 years I have been sending people from there...Lets hope the 787 might open a new world of oppertunities for us in the SW!!