Gaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2 Posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1518 times:
According to Flight International, carriers, principally Air New Zealand, Continental, United and Air Pacific, have to find a cost effective way to keep Johnson Atoll's airport open after the USAF departure in mid-2004.
1. Paying to maintain the runway
2. Adding 20min to flying time
3. Lobying US to continuing operations at Johnson
3. Looking at an alternate alternate airport like Christmas Island (to be redeveloped as it is currently restricted to 737 ops) or Mujaro but it will probably still force airlines to fly longer ETOPS routes
Anyway it will cost a lot of money.
I think twins should be only use over lands, they are not enough flexible over seas
Areopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
If option 2 is to add 20 minutes to the flying time, that suggests that another airport is not too far from Johnson Atoll. So that makes me wonder, is this according to the 180-minute rule? If Boeing gets its way with the 207-minute standard, can they dispense with the Johnson Atoll airport without a flying time penalty?
Longer term, this could be an advantage of the Sonic Cruiser: with a higher single-engine speed than other twins, it could range farther from an airport under a given time standard.
Timz From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 6771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
Well, now-- this raises a bunch of questions. For instance, is Majuro (PKMJ) not at present an acceptable alternate, with its 7897-ft runway?
Surely Hilo and Pago Pago are both acceptable, and they're 2235 nm apart, so the gate that 180-min ETOPS flights pass through... well, I'll have to work on that. Offhand I'm guessing 207-minute ETOPS would largely eliminate the need for Johnston (PJON), but more figuring to do.
Gaut From Belgium, joined Dec 2001, 344 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (12 years 5 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
I think you have missed my point, I was not talking about safety concern of ETOPS but about FLEXIBILITY of the system for airliners
Majuro seems to be acceptable alternate but it will add fly time --> fuel --> $$
Is ETOPS207 already reality or a Boeing's project. Altought I know that flying with one engine is not really a problem, as pax, I think flying 3h28 to an alternate airport on one engine is not really confortable.