Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LCY Aircraft Restrictions: Interesting Info  
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5693 times:

Hi All,

Today I was learning more about ops at LCY. For those who don't know: only multi-engined, fixed-wing aircraft can operate into LCY, and must be of an approved type. The list of approved types may be found here:
http://www.londoncityairport.com/con...0of%20Aircraft_and_Concessions.pdf

I found a few things interesting:
1) The 318 is approved, but not the 736. European airport laughing at Boeing, the airlines operating (AFAIK the BA Limited 318 service is the only 318 flight), or noise/performance issues?
2) While a wide variety of Dassualt and Cessna jets are approved, the only Gulfstream approved is the G150. Is this simply because Gulfstream doesn't think the hassle to approve the rest is necessary? I would assume many a Gulfstream owner would like to fly into LCY vs, say LGW. The E190s are approved, and most Gulfstreams can takeoff in a shorter space than a 190, correct?
3) Only the ERJ135 is approved, not the 140/145, and the CR7 isn't either.

Thoughts?

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2370 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5696 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
1) The 318 is approved, but not the 736. European airport laughing at Boeing, the airlines operating (AFAIK the BA Limited 318 service is the only 318 flight), or noise/performance issues?

Nobody has wanted to fly the 736 to LCY so it has never been certified for it, although I don't know if it has the performance for it. Nothing to do with European airports laughing at Boeing.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 5689 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 1):
Nobody has wanted to fly the 736 to LCY so it has never been certified for it, although I don't know if it has the performance for it. Nothing to do with European airports laughing at Boeing.

I assumed as much. Any idea what the T/O roll for a 318 vs a 736 is?


User currently offlinehorstroad From Germany, joined Apr 2010, 284 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 5653 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 2):

I assumed as much. Any idea what the T/O roll for a 318 vs a 736 is?

I don't think it's the the runway length, that is the problem. LCY has a G/S of 5.5° (used to be 7.5°) for noise abatement reasons. the A318 is certified for steep approaches, the 736 probably not (I assume)


User currently offlineroseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9824 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 5642 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
2) While a wide variety of Dassualt and Cessna jets are approved, the only Gulfstream approved is the G150. Is this simply because Gulfstream doesn't think the hassle to approve the rest is necessary? I would assume many a Gulfstream owner would like to fly into LCY vs, say LGW. The E190s are approved, and most Gulfstreams can takeoff in a shorter space than a 190, correct?

A G550 can land and takeoff on a runway that short. I assume it can handle the glideslope. One of the problems is where to park it. The business jet ramp is small and the G550 has the same wingspan as an Embraer 190, so it would take up one of the airline gates. It might not be worth it to get the airplane certified.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 5558 times:

Thanks!
It all seems to come down to the fact there isn't a point to certify these a/c. The gulfstreams might have to take an airline gate. Good point.

And though the 736 might be able to handle the glideslope and noise it just isn't worth attempting.

If the CR7 was approved would LH Cityliner (sorry forgot their code) or someone else fly it in?


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21875 posts, RR: 55
Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5355 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
1) The 318 is approved, but not the 736. European airport laughing at Boeing, the airlines operating (AFAIK the BA Limited 318 service is the only 318 flight), or noise/performance issues?

Can't make the glideslope. The 318 has to use special software connected to the flight spoilers in order to do the approach. The 736, being non-FBW, doesn't have that option.

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
2) While a wide variety of Dassualt and Cessna jets are approved, the only Gulfstream approved is the G150. Is this simply because Gulfstream doesn't think the hassle to approve the rest is necessary? I would assume many a Gulfstream owner would like to fly into LCY vs, say LGW. The E190s are approved, and most Gulfstreams can takeoff in a shorter space than a 190, correct?

It's not about the runway, it's about the steep approach. And there are a lot of types that just can't do it.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 4):
A G550 can land and takeoff on a runway that short. I assume it can handle the glideslope.

No, it can't. One of the downsides of a very low-drag wing is that it's tough to get it to descend fast enough on a steep glideslope without speed increasing. You could design it to, but then you'd have to build in larger (and thus heavier) flaps and perhaps leading edge devices, which adds weight and complexity. Apparently there's not the need.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 872 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5318 times:

The glideslope is a major issue. I used to operate Avro RJ 100s there and if you weren't in the landing config before starting down the 5.5 degree slope, there was little hope of slowing it down subsequently. The required mod was a Steep Glideslope switch, which de-sensitised the GPWS system to accomodate the greater closure rate. This could only be selected before glideslope capture. I also flew Do228s there after the glideslope was adjusted to 5.5. I heard that to get one down the original 7.5 degree slope, the engine bleeds had to be switched on to slow the engines down a bit!

Regards - musang


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5232 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
I would assume many a Gulfstream owner would like to fly into LCY vs, say LGW.

For a corporate type jet - LCY is a poor choice - costs are extremely high and they really don't want that corporate jet to stay on the ramp for very long.

Biggin Hill EGKB / BQH is a much better choice for smaller jets, and Stansted for larger jets.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 9, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4982 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 5):
If the CR7 was approved would LH Cityliner (sorry forgot their code) or someone else fly it in?

Lufthansa CityLine's IATA code = CL

Regards,

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
User currently offlineKenanC From United States of America, joined Aug 2013, 193 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 4521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I have a feeling it is noise abatement for nearby residential areas. SNA in CA has similar restrictions (just not as tough) but it could also just simply (as said above) airlines have not been interested in flying it there.


Flown: A319/20/21/33/43/88 B737/38/39/52/63/72/7W ERJ135/40/45 CRJ200 ATR42
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4355 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 2):
Quoting Polot (Reply 1):
Nobody has wanted to fly the 736 to LCY so it has never been certified for it, although I don't know if it has the performance for it. Nothing to do with European airports laughing at Boeing.

I assumed as much

I do have to wonder why you even considered it remotely likely that the reason would be a 'European airport laughing at Boeing'. I appreciate your clarification that it seemed unlikely, but to even mention it seems a bit strange to be honest. It really wouldn't be in the airport's interests to thumb their nose at customers wanting to fly a particular type in if it could be certified to do so in the prevailing operating conditions, As far as I know, airports are not in the habit of arbitrarily banning certain manufacturers from their fields purely for political fun. Or, am I wrong? Have there been such examples?

Quoting musang (Reply 7):
I used to operate Avro RJ 100s there and if you weren't in the landing config before starting down the 5.5 degree slope, there was little hope of slowing it down subsequently. The required mod was a Steep Glideslope switch, which de-sensitised the GPWS system to accomodate the greater closure rate. This could only be selected before glideslope capture. I also flew Do228s there after the glideslope was adjusted to 5.5. I heard that to get one down the original 7.5 degree slope, the engine bleeds had to be switched on to slow the engines down a bit!

That was a really enlightening post. Really put the operational difficulties of LCY into context. Properly challenging stuff.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4214 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 11):
As far as I know, airports are not in the habit of arbitrarily banning certain manufacturers from their fields purely for political fun. Or, am I wrong? Have there been such examples?

The Indian government ban on A380 operations to/from India is a good example of that.
http://www.traveldailynews.asia/news...cle/51888/ban-on-airbus-a380-deter


User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7719 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4186 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
The Indian government ban on A380 operations to/from India is a good example of that.

Thanks for that. How about in the 'western' or 'developed' world though? The EU or US, for example? Has this happened?



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4148 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 13):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
The Indian government ban on A380 operations to/from India is a good example of that.

Thanks for that. How about in the 'western' or 'developed' world though? The EU or US, for example? Has this happened?

Concorde was banned from the U.S. for quite a while before BA/AF finally received permission to start service. That's why BA initially introduced service to SIN via BAH. If memory correct the U.S. ban was officially for noise-related reasons, but I expect politics were also involved since no U.S. carriers had plans to operate the type.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11718 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4139 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
1) The 318 is approved, but not the 736. European airport laughing at Boeing, the airlines operating (AFAIK the BA Limited 318 service is the only 318 flight), or noise/performance issues?

IIRC the 736 was looked at, but it could not economically be modified to fly the steep glideslope.

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
2) While a wide variety of Dassualt and Cessna jets are approved, the only Gulfstream approved is the G150. Is this simply because Gulfstream doesn't think the hassle to approve the rest is necessary? I would assume many a Gulfstream owner would like to fly into LCY vs, say LGW. The E190s are approved, and most Gulfstreams can takeoff in a shorter space than a 190, correct?

The small number of business aircraft is for a mixture of reasons; the steep approach, lack of slots, noise limits and lack of parking. But for business aircraft LCY is not as popular as people think, you are required to have two captains both trained on steep approaches, for most business jet and even private operators that is not really practical.

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
3) Only the ERJ135 is approved, not the 140/145, and the CR7 isn't either.

The early jungle jets have dire runway performance, even the 135 is not ideally suited to LCY and on a hot day the 145 wouldn't lift itself off the deck even when empty.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4132 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
If memory correct the U.S. ban was officially for noise-related reasons, but I expect politics were also involved since no U.S. carriers had plans to operate the type

Concorde started service Jan 76 on routing mentioned.
Concorde started service to Dulles May 76, so no politics were involved, the flights were welcomed.
Concorde started service to JFK Nov 77 after noise complaint suit (filed locally) was over turned easily on the grounds that the POTUS aircraft VC-137 was louder than the Concorde.

So, it was held up for about 1.5 yrs. over noise at JFK but not by the government or political efforts just NIMBY's

Okie


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

The Concorde came into service soon after the Vietnam Anti-War movement turned into the start of the Enviornmental movement.

Sonic booms were associated with military testing back in the 60s. Any super-sonic aircraft was environmentally 'dangerous' and super-sonic flight over land was 'unhealthy' for people under the flight path.

If the Concorde had been operational five years earlier - it likely would have serviced ATL, ORD, LAX or SFO and possibly DEN and/or DFW. Timing is everything for revolutionary aircraft.

The Concorde would have been allowed to serve those airports - but having to fly under the speed of sound across the United States make serving any but a couple key east coast airports impossible in the US.

Yes, the restrictions were political - but not because the aircraft was 'foreign' or operated by non-US airlines. It was the politics of a growing environmental movement taking on the US government, airport operators and airlines (big business and therefore 'evil') and exerting political pressure at the most fundamental level - the local level.

[Edited 2013-08-25 18:57:54]

User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17185 posts, RR: 66
Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4034 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 12):
The Indian government ban on A380 operations to/from India is a good example of that.
http://www.traveldailynews.asia/news...deter

Didn't know about this one but it is classic Indian politics when dealing with foreign companies. Inconsistent and arbitrary rules make foreign investment much more difficult than it needs to be in many areas. The net effect is slower development. Protecting domestic companies in the short term while hurting domestic citizens in the long term.

But I digress...



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 3875 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 17):
Sonic booms were associated with military testing back in the 60s. Any super-sonic aircraft was environmentally 'dangerous' and super-sonic flight over land was 'unhealthy' for people under the flight path.

In cases like the Oklahoma CIty experiment, that sentiment was entirely warranted. What they thought they were thinking there is beyond me, we could have had SSTs if this sort of stuff were done more tactfully.


User currently offlineDevilfish From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4952 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 3851 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Thread starter):
The E190s are approved, and most Gulfstreams can takeoff in a shorter space than a 190, correct?
3) Only the ERJ135 is approved, not the 140/145, and the CR7 isn't either.

Given that the E170 is listed, it's possible that the E175E2 might also be approved (with restrictions).....

.


http://www.beholdthepowerof2.com/ejets/e175


However, published estimated short field performance specs and absent definite guidance from Embraer that they would qualify the E175E2 for the steep-approach requirement at LCY...its projected 2,240m TOFL is almost the same as the 2,244m figure for the current E175AR...much worse than the standard E170's 1,483m - and over LCY's 1,508m runway length.



"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 13 hours ago) and read 3759 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
If memory correct the U.S. ban was officially for noise-related reasons, but I expect politics were also involved since no U.S. carriers had plans to operate the type.

As noted, the temporary ban of Concorde operations at JFK was due to NIMBYs, not by the US Government due to the lack of US customers or lack of a US SST. If the Boeing 2707 or Lockheed L2000 had entered revenue service, the same NIMBY's would have sought to ban it's operations, as well. Of course, that same environmental movement that fought Concorde played a major role in killing the US SST program.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 12 hours ago) and read 3737 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Of course, that same environmental movement that fought Concorde played a major role in killing the US SST program.

Not to mention the huge cost overruns that they had with the 2707....


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 23, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 3722 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
If memory correct the U.S. ban was officially for noise-related reasons, but I expect politics were also involved since no U.S. carriers had plans to operate the type.

As noted, the temporary ban of Concorde operations at JFK was due to NIMBYs, not by the US Government due to the lack of US customers or lack of a US SST.

What was the position of U.S. competitors like Pan Am and TWA on approval of Concorde service to the U.S.? Did they come out in support of the delaying tactics? I can't remember. I expect they would have used whatever influence they had with the various levels of government and airports etc. to stall Concorde service as long as possible.

[Edited 2013-08-26 17:03:30]

User currently offlineokie From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 3190 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 11 hours ago) and read 3717 times:

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 19):
In cases like the Oklahoma CIty experiment, that sentiment was entirely warranted. What they thought they were thinking there is beyond me, we could have had SSTs if this sort of stuff were done more tactfully.

Well being a survivor of Bongo II, I will say this from my perspective.
There were a few "cracked" panes of glass, not shattered. Largely had to deal with the way glass was mounted in windows from the 30's onward through the 60's which the glass was "glazed" into the frames and would have to be re-glazed every 4 or 5 years or the glass would rattle around in the frame. Glass is mounted with more permanent methods now.

It definitely smoked some kooks out of the woodwork with all sorts of allegations looking for settlements for all types of claims. There were some parents of a teenaged girl claimed that the cause of her becoming pregnant was because of the sonic booms, she definitely was not responsible. So there you go sonic booms cause unauthorized orgasms.

The plus side was that you could set your clock by the sonic booms as they came the same time every day. Quite handy with my Latin class as the teacher would talk way past class time if something did not interrupt her and you would be late to your next class. Sonic boom everyday at 1pm did the trick.

Now back to the thread.
I noticed that LCY has expansion plans clear out to 2030 so it will be interesting what aircraft will be certificated to handle that 5.5 slope in the future.

Okie


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17185 posts, RR: 66
Reply 25, posted (1 year 4 months 5 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
What was the position of U.S. competitors like Pan Am and TWA on approval of Concorde service to the U.S.?

Given that several US carriers, including Pan Am and TWA, ordered Concorde I think it is fair to say they were counting on approval.

Here's an orders list for Concorde and B2707 followed by chronological Concorde orders.

AIRLINE Concorde B2707
Aer Lingus - 2
Air Canada 4 6
Air France 8 6
Air India 2 2
Airlift Int. - 1
Alitalia - 6
American 6 6
BOAC 8 6
Braniff 3 2
Canadian Pac. - 3
Continental 3 3
Delta - 3
Eastern 6 6
El Al - 2
Iberia - 3
JAL 3 5
KLM - 6
Lufthansa 3 3
Middle East 2 -
Northwest - 6
Pakistan Int. - 2
Pan American 8 15
Qantas 4 6
Sabena 2 -
Trans-Am. - 1
TWA 6 12
United 6 6
World - 3
----- -----
TOTALS 74 122

Concorde:
01apr1984 British Airways 1 (for spares use)
14apr1980 Air France 1 (c/n 13 previously on loan)
Oct 1972 Iran Air (2(+1)) (cancelled)
28jul1972 Air France 4
24jul1972 CAAC (2(+2))(cancelled)
25may1972 BOAC 5
May 1966 Qantas (4) (cancelled)
1966 Eastern (6) (cancelled)
1965 Air Canada (4) (cancelled)
1965 Air India (2) (cancelled)
1965 American (6) (cancelled)
1965 Braniff (3) (cancelled)
1965 Eastern (2) (cancelled)
1965 JAL (3) (cancelled)
1965 Lufthansa (3) (cancelled)
1965 MEA-Air Liban (2) (cancelled)
1965 Qantas (6) (2 options cancelled 5/66, last 4 later cancelled)
1965 Sabena (2) (cancelled)
1965 TWA (6) (cancelled)
1965 United (6) (cancelled)
16jan1964 American (4) (cancelled)
1964 Air France (2) (total 8)
1964 BOAC (8)
1964 Continental (3) (cancelled)
1964 TWA (4) (cancelled)
03jun1963 Air France (6)
03jun1963 BOAC (6)
03jun1963 Pan American (6) (2 more later optioned, 1 then all cancelled)



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 26, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 22):
Not to mention the huge cost overruns that they had with the 2707....

Costs were actually never a major issue with the program.The program had the full support of the Nixon Administration (the FAA had been fixated on a US SST since the 1950s) as well as major labor unions, who saw it as a massive jobs program. It was also seen as a matter of national pride, much like the Space Race had been.



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 23):
What was the position of U.S. competitors like Pan Am and TWA on approval of Concorde service to the U.S.? I expect they would have used whatever influence they had with the various levels of government and airports etc. to stall Concorde service as long as possible.

As Starlionblue noted, they were both Concorde (and, I believe, 2707) customers. Yes, they cancelled their orders by the time the plane entered service with BA and AF, but that was because the operating economics were too poor. So if anything, you'd think both would want BA and AF to fly it because it was losing them money (at the time - I am aware BA (if not also AF) eventually operated them at a profit thanks to being able to set fares at whatever level they wanted).

And as the plane was allowed to operate at IAD and DFW (with Braniff), whatever influence they had certainly wasn't effective at stopping Concorde from serving the US.


User currently offlineLH707330 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 849 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3594 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Costs were actually never a major issue with the program.

I stand corrected, looks like it was nimbys and congressional bickering based on a short Wikipedia read.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17185 posts, RR: 66
Reply 28, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3589 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
And as the plane was allowed to operate at IAD and DFW (with Braniff), whatever influence they had certainly wasn't effective at stopping Concorde from serving the US.

Overland routes were subsonic, making them massively inefficient and negating any advantage apart from coolness factor.



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 29, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3569 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 28):
Overland routes were subsonic, making them massively inefficient and negating any advantage apart from coolness factor.

True, but the objection to operations at JFK involved subsonic operation - take-off and landing.

To my knowledge very few countries allowed supersonic overflight of their territory (Iran, for example, during the time the Shah was ruling). India was expected to allow it and when they did not, I believe that crimped the plans for flights to Southeast Asia and Oceania.


User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17185 posts, RR: 66
Reply 30, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 29):
True, but the objection to operations at JFK involved subsonic operation - take-off and landing.

Logical. Concorde was very loud subsonically as well unfortunately, especially on approach.

'tis a shame Concorde-B never got off the ground. It would have mitigated many of Concorde's weaknesses, including approach noise and noise overall. Couple that with much lower fuel consumption and bigger tanks...

http://www.concordesst.com/concordeb.html



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26021 posts, RR: 22
Reply 31, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 3496 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
So if anything, you'd think both would want BA and AF to fly it because it was losing them money (at the time - I am aware BA (if not also AF) eventually operated them at a profit thanks to being able to set fares at whatever level they wanted).

But Concorde also took a lot of premium passengers from PA/TW and other carriers' F class cabins. And losing money wasn't a problem for BA and AF then as they were government-owned and their governments didn't seem to mind pumping in additional funds when they ran short.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 32, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 31):
But Concorde also took a lot of premium passengers from PA/TW and other carriers' F class cabins.

Well it evidently didn't hurt them too bad, since both PA and TW survived Concorde's entry into service. *shrug*


User currently offlinemusang From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2001, 872 posts, RR: 7
Reply 33, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3215 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
That's why BA initially introduced service to SIN via BAH
Quoting okie (Reply 16):
Concorde started service Jan 76 on routing mentioned

To elaborate - LHR - BAH began January 1976, the short-lived SIN extension was December 1977.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
I am aware BA (if not also AF) eventually operated them at a profit thanks to being able to set fares at whatever level they wanted

And in BA's case the airline was relieved of the aquisition/ownership costs, buying the fleet from the government for a token fee.

Regards - musang


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31433 posts, RR: 85
Reply 34, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3172 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting musang (Reply 33):
And in BA's case the airline was relieved of the aquisition/ownership costs, buying the fleet from the government for a token fee.

As I recall, only a handful of the frames were acquired at the greatly reduced price. I believe BA did pay "contract price" for a number of their earlier deliveries.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic LCY Aircraft Restrictions: Interesting Info
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Looking For Aircraft Galley Info. posted Sun Apr 11 2010 17:32:58 by sunking737
Request For Aircraft Controls Info posted Tue Sep 6 2005 11:30:39 by Malandan
Where Can I Get Detailled Info On Aircraft? posted Tue Oct 5 2004 17:16:24 by TW741
Aircraft Registration Vs Builder's Plate Info posted Fri Sep 26 2003 22:42:22 by Mirrodie
Interesting Airbus Info... posted Fri Nov 23 2001 22:41:55 by Jetguy
Info. Needed On Aircraft Leasing &Management posted Fri Jul 27 2001 14:49:24 by Qantas777
How Are Aircraft Guided To Unfamiliar Airports? posted Thu Aug 1 2013 19:10:24 by 777way
Mechanics - Aircraft Main't Intervals And Duration posted Wed Jul 31 2013 09:19:19 by ImperialAero
BA 227 - What Aircraft? posted Mon Jul 29 2013 00:04:46 by garpd
Aircraft Airlines Regretted Ordering And Flying posted Thu Jul 25 2013 20:43:07 by CairnterriAIR

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format