What about A319 Neo? Would that be a good contender for flights to and from St.Helena? Still doesn't overcome the issue with wind shear! I mean at some point the NEO will be operational and probably available for ACMI charters etc...

Could they not come to an agreement with ASC in the event of required diversion that the aircraft can fuel up and fly back to St.Helena... I mean yes that's a pain and will probably happen more often that not but surely that's got to be better than a 5 day boat ride once every 3 weeks! At least until they come up with some resolve to the issue!

prebennorholm wrote:

Right, but they operated from the Ascension Island 700 miles to N-W. But the 4,500 souls on the island want to go to South Africa some 1500 miles in the opposite direction.

The ARJ-100 is of course the perfect plane for the airport. But it lacks the capability (range / payload) for meaningful operation to South Africa, considering the lack of nearby alternates, and the need for tailwind landings due to the extreme windshear conditions.

The Bae146/RJ were used for years to serve the Cocos and Christmas Islands from Perth.

ikramerica wrote:

Better a covertible freighter where the seats slide forward, or are paletized or modularized in some way. Then it's operated at least once a week for passengers and ad hoc as a freighter. You can also have a module or pallet with a medical setup for evac flights.

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2014/07/ ... some-love/ says:

The Boeing 737-700C is an interesting aircraft. What makes it unique is its ability to convert from passengers to cargo depending on how the airline wants to use it. If you have heavy passenger flow during the summer, but more cargo during the winter, being able to convert between the two is quite helpful.

What also makes the 737-700C unique is that, like the Boeing Business Jet (BBJ), it has strengthened wings, different than the standard passenger 737-700. When in passenger configuration, the plane can hold 120-140 seats and fly 3,205nm. In an all-cargo set up, it can haul 40,000 pounds and fly 2,880nm.

And:

Boeing even says that, “the 737 combi is very much a niche airplane.” There have only been 21 orders placed for the plane and 17 have been delivered. Two were delivered to Saudi Aramco in 2001, one was delivered to SonAir in 2008 and one is actually a Boeing Business Jet Convertible (their fancy name for the 737-700C). All the rest have been delivered to the US Navy Reserve Force. Two of the remaining to be delivered are going to Air Algerie and two to the Navy.

Is there a future for another niche aircraft that can handle passengers and cargo? Bombardier thinks so. They also announced last week that they will offer a Q400 combi, which will seat 50 passengers and carry 8,200 pounds of cargo. It is not quite the same as the -700C, since it will have both passengers and cargo.

Some interesting candidates.

mjoelnir wrote:

I have not looked if there are ETOPS CRJ700 or E170

There are not. At least with enough ETOPS range.

Swiss is parking their RJ100 at Kemble. Airfleets shows seven so far.

However, Severnside Aviation only shows HB-IXT.

Seems the rest have already been scrapped.

mjoelnir wrote:

f4f3a wrote:

Would it not be possible to civilianise an mil cargo such as c17 or something like a an74. What would work really well and I would love to see
Is them use a shinmaywa us2 , if it couldn't land on the runway it could just land in the harbour:)

As there are enough civilian airliners being able to do this, why look to the military stuff? One should just not start out with a 737-800, it having rather limited field performance.
The Avro RJ100 of course, Dash 8-400, today a CS100, 700nm from ASI. A 737-700 or 737-600. An A318 or A319, even a 757-200 does better than the 737-800.

It helps when you have guys like the two pilots being used to fly in and out of FAE. There they used the Avro RJ100 and use now the A319. It helps also to contract the right airline flying the right equipment. BA has some A318, but perhaps that is to "fine" to be used on this Islanders even for a try out.

The two pilots from RC, who flew the plane into HLE, compared it to FAE in the article, if they are cited correctly there is no problem to use either a 737-500 or a Avro RJ100. On the old FAE airport (at 1250m) these two types flew in daily for decades, only canceling due to heavy fog or high winds (above 20 m/s), although all of us who used them regularly preferred the Avro's, a much smoother landing, it always felt like the 737s dive bombed down onto the runway unless it was a perfect weather day.

Before we had FAE lengthened Airbus did test flights with the A319, and since HLE has a longer runway than the old FAE, it might be doable with the A319 in relatively adverse weather - all I know for certain is that the 737-500 landed daily for over 20 years for DM.

Was it also a mistake to just award the contract to Comair...can they still reverse that decision, was this more to do with the BA connections? Airlink operates AvroRJ85s, will they be able to do the job then...it operates JNB-TNR and JNB-NOS currently...it is however expected that Airlink might replace the Avros over the next few years with most likely E170 and E190.
Another interesting development that occured last week is that South Africa and Namibia signed a new air service bilateral allowing more flights AND fifth freedom rights...which can then in this case mean a South African carrier will be allowed to operate from Namibia onwards to St.Helena, so ideally then probably JNB-WalvisBay-StHelena

f4f3a wrote:

Would it not be possible to civilianise an mil cargo such as c17 or something like a an74. What would work really well and I would love to see
Is them use a shinmaywa us2 , if it couldn't land on the runway it could just land in the harbour:)

It would be possible, but it will not happen. Military planes are built for military operations, they are usually everything but economical. It has been discussed here before and C-17 just wouldn't be economically viable to operate as civilian aircraft.

You have to remind that if it is possible, airlines want to use two engine aircraft instead of four, because usually four engine aircraft are less economical.

I know you would like to see all kind of aircraft flying this route, but there are not so many options actually.

Most regional jets or even MD-80's don't have either range or ETOPS capabilities to fly from Africa to St.Helena. For example from Walvis Bay to fly to St.Helena even ETOPS 120 is not enough. That rules out every small passenger jet, except business jets.

So there are a few options.

1) Lenghten the runway at St.Helena, which would be very expensive.
2) Blow up the hill if it would change winds, which would be very expensive.
3) Use aircraft that have 4 engines and can operate from St.Helena. One aircraft that comes in to my mind is Lockheed Hercules and its civilian version.
4) This is probably the cheapest and most logical option. Cooperate with AirTanker that flies from Brize Norton to Falkland Islands via Ascension Island and fly only from Ascension Island to St.Helena.

You have to remind that routes are operated by private companies. If there is not business to be made there will not be a company to try to make business. For example it was too expensive for BA to charter plane to carry team UK to olympics, they will definitely not operate to a island in the middle of the ocean where making money is nearly impossible.

VSMUT wrote:

Wasn't this about St. Helena to Africa flights?

Not initially, per the blog linked in the OP it's about twice weekly flights to Ascension to link up with the RAF flight that stops there:

In terms of a service schedule, Atlantic Star’s initial proposal is to establish a twice weekly shuttle flight to Ascension Island, carrying approximately 50 of the Avro’s 100 passenger capacity. This reduced number allows good safe margins landing at St Helena in tail winds up to 15 knots. The idea is for connections to be made with the RAF passenger flights to the UK.

This is just a starting point; there would be plenty of scope to then develop the service with more frequent flights and also acquiring a second, modified aircraft for longer range links to both Cape Town and Johannesburg. Increased flights mean more efficient use of the aircraft.

The aircraft would be based on St Helena and therefore available as a 24/7 medevac option if required.

prebennorholm wrote:

Viscount724 wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

The RJ100 has been out of production for quite a while.

Last one delivered 13 years ago (2003).

Which doesn't exclude that BAE could modify one ARJ with extra belly tanks similar to the RAF 32th sqn birds of the Royal Flight.

Back of the envelope calculations would indicate that with such a mod an ARJ would make the St. Helena - RSA roundtrip with Ascension as alternate with a half full cabin OR (not "and") 10 klb cargo/mail.

Problem is that the citizens of St. Helena are dreaming of a £600 roundtrip to RSA, and reasonably priced cargo and mail service. That sort of economy is impossible on a specialized plane with much reduced payload capability, which is next to impossible to utilize six days a week.

There is already the option for the 146/RJ series to increase the fuel available with front an rear baggage tanks and pannier tanks, full details and performance charts available (p26-27) :
https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... ations.pdf

Whoever has been following the St. Helena airport drama knew this was coming...

It was always going to be a difficult airport project, aside the mere and evident cost, but the UK Govt was so insistent and persistent in "wanting to render the Island self-sufficient" (the UK is infamous for its obsession to render everything and sundry "economically viable" and possibly privatized...), hence the decision not to go ahead with the refurbishment of the old vessel, and contract a highly specialized private company to build the airport.
We all knew things were going to be difficult from both a commercial standpoint, as well as a technical ops point of view, but all parties involved -I feel- got a little too merrily carried away with the project, [honestly?] believing the project would have paid off, and [higher-end] tourism could be syphoned to the Island...
Alas, as we see, the reality is quite different... St. Helena is one amazingly beautiful place, and really quite unique in terms of scenery and habitat diversity. Isolation has been crucial to the preservation of its untouched beauty. The island is a true unique GEM, which must be protected and cherished. The UK Govt should, more than anything else, make sure that the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena is protected and retained as untouched and unadulterated as possible. Period. This will inevitably cost a lot of money (taxpayers money, yes) - there is no way around this. But the UK should be proud of this, and not continue to see the Island as a liability on its accountancy books.. The island needs regular ship/air service to serve the local population, so any kind of service should be subsidized. To me there is no way around this. it's a moral question, a mere subsistence question. And the UK Govt should once and for all make peace with this ineludible fact. End of story.

So..... we now have a beautiful airport. I think we should all forget about having low-cost or charter services coming to the island. God forbid. It would be the end for such a unique and special place. What the island needs is, yes, better accessibility for 'some' higher-end travelers wishing to visit a very special place (forget resorts, casinos, and pina coladas under a palm... thank you. We have Mallorca for that.), but more than this, it's the Islanders who need to be able to get in and out of their Island with reasonable ease. Again, subsidized flights are the answer...

Going onto the topic of aircrafts... the 146/Avro is the ideal frame for St.Helena...it unfortunately lacks the range needed.. unless we perhaps speak of the RJ-70 variant (perhaps with reduced seating).? Again, should the 146/Avro be used, then cargo should be flown in/out separately... The 146 could be operated to Ascension, Windhoek, Walvis Bay, Jo'burg, Cape Town...again, mostly for the sake of the Islanders who need to work overseas, and then and only then for the sake of visiting tourists.
B737-600s/700s (perhaps even the -500), plus A318s/A319s could do the job, but they are much more sensitive to winds, etc.
The 146 is in a league of its own. While above mentioned jets are "hot-rods" that can easily get out of short runways and/or difficult airports, the 146 delivers the ability to "get in" said airfields.....
The flight to Ascension would also need to meet & feed the RR flight from Brize Norton, and the continuing flight to Mount Pleasant (lots of "Saints" live and work in the magnificent Falkland Islands archipelago).

Now, would such operation ever be economically viable??? This is one question for posterity perhaps, but one that the UK Govt (and perhaps, to some extent DFID) should also ponder upon......

oldannyboy wrote:

The UK Govt should, more than anything else, make sure that the British Overseas Territory of Saint Helena is protected and retained as untouched and unadulterated as possible. Period. This will inevitably cost a lot of money (taxpayers money, yes) - there is no way around this. But the UK should be proud of this, and not continue to see the Island as a liability on its accountancy books.. The island needs regular ship/air service to serve the local population, so any kind of service should be subsidized. To me there is no way around this. it's a moral question, a mere subsistence question. And the UK Govt should once and for all make peace with this ineludible fact. End of story.

Well said.

BaconButty wrote:

Not initially, per the blog linked in the OP it's about twice weekly flights to Ascension to link up with the RAF flight that stops there:

Apparently, the intent began as a direct fortnightly service from LTN to HLE which was modified with a stop at ASI as it immediately became obvious that the sector was too long even for the 'mighty' 757. The business case then evolved as models were cast aside one after the other.....

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... 16-398497/

http://www.sthelenalocal.com/category/a ... -airlines/


The proponent was said to have access to around twenty BAe 146s for the shorter segments.

oldannyboy wrote:

So..... we now have a beautiful airport. I think we should all forget about having low-cost or charter services coming to the island.

It would be a real shame if such a fine facility should go to waste... ...


https://whatthesaintsdidnext.files.word ... =800&h=533


Nature seems to have a knack for spoiling people's best laid plans (or follies).....

doug_or wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

doug_or wrote:

I read the full post, but none of it explains why the ARJ100 is better suited. Is the 20 approach over steep terrain? Does the ARJ have a higher certified tailwind limit or higher demonstrated crosswind component?

Did you read the article mentioned in the post? About everything is the difference.

Anyway, there are a lot of airports were the ARJ100 gets in and out and the 737-800 does not manage. Perhaps they should try a 737-700 or an A319.

Yes, I did read the article. It mentioned the short stopping distance of the ARJ, and the problem the 737 had with crosswinds, but I didn't see anything else. Those statements didn't answer my question.

Agreed. If the Avro RJ is somehow better suited to windshear than the 737, this hasn't been explained.

The Avro JR100 came to St. Helena ZRH-RAK-DKR-ASI-HLE
1,218 nm
1,135 nm
1,369 nm
701 nm
DKR-ASI matches the distance HLE-WDH 1,367 nm
The two pilots flying the Avro were recomending to use it with 50 pax instead of 100.
An Avro RJ70 would be difficult to find, but there are quite a few 85 around.

Devilfish wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Not initially, per the blog linked in the OP it's about twice weekly flights to Ascension to link up with the RAF flight that stops there:

Apparently, the intent began as a direct fortnightly service from LTN to HLE which was modified with a stop at ASI as it immediately became obvious that the sector was too long even for the 'mighty' 757. The business case then evolved as models were cast aside one after the other.....

Sure, but I was referring to the specifics of the current proposal, which is ASI-HLE. Hence the talk of where in Africa the Avro can reach is pretty much moot.

Devilfish wrote:

Nature seems to have a knack for spoiling people's best laid plans (or follies).....

It seems someone has mislaid the results of the wind studies, sigh...

The Avro RJ takes off and more importantly lands at a slower speed than the 737 and I'm going to take a punt that that goes in it's favour in getting into HLE better than the Boeing does, on top of the short field performance. Theres loads of Avros around and if one wants to take one on but theres costs involved in crewing/training people up on them if someone like Comair wished to introduce a new type. It sounds as if Atlantic Star can make it work if they've spoken to BAE about modifying a frame to operate to JNB. Let's hope it's a 5 abreast configuration

Interestingly, the original article states that the Avro will be continuing onto South America. Has this happened and if so what route was actually taken?

giblets wrote:

There is already the option for the 146/RJ series to increase the fuel available with front an rear baggage tanks and pannier tanks, full details and performance charts available (p26-27) :
https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... ations.pdf

I read over that information. A couple of items:

When using the wing stub tank (or Pennier Tanks), the Front Cargo Bay Tank and the Rear Cargo Bay Tanks, you gain quite a bit of range. However, at takeoff, you have an additional (9460) 4300kg of fuel/fuel infrastructure weight...or about 47 passengers worth of weight (nominal weight of 200 lbs per pax/bags).

Couple of things that could be done... Convert it to a 2X2 passenger airframe. That would give you an pax count of 80 (assuming an original baseline RJ100 w/ 100 seats at 5 abreast). You yield on the side of comfort and reduce the weight of the plane to allow fuel... With 20 pax, their luggage and the 20 seats removed, you've probably saved the weight of 25 of those 47 passengers. Now you have to account for 4400lbs (2000kg) left. How much will this extra weight increase take-off distance? I didn't see that info given, but I guess you use the software to calculate that..

You could forego the Front Cargo Bay Tank, which would save 2849lbs (1295kg), but reduces the range a bit and payload significantly.

Again, the concern is this extra fuel weight eating into runway performance and carrying ability.

There was the plan of installing winglets on the BAe 146-300 when it was being defined to increase range, but operators wanted cheap price over capability, therefore it was not done. There was also the plan to use Honeywell AS977 on the cancelled RJX-100 that targeted 15% less fuel-burn for a 17% range increase (as well as maintenance improvements). Would anyone ever consider making these mods on an existing AVRO RJ100s to increase the range and payload so that it can do 2400+ nm with a good pax load (80) and payload! IF you are just going from St. Helena to South Africa, would you need to do allot of re-certification work to fly revenue pax?

Norlander wrote:

The two pilots from RC, who flew the plane into HLE, compared it to FAE in the article, if they are cited correctly there is no problem to use either a 737-500 or a Avro RJ100. On the old FAE airport (at 1250m) these two types flew in daily for decades, only canceling due to heavy fog or high winds (above 20 m/s), although all of us who used them regularly preferred the Avro's, a much smoother landing, it always felt like the 737s dive bombed down onto the runway unless it was a perfect weather day.

While there are many similarities between HLE and FAE, then there are also huge differences:

1. First of all the much longer distance to Africa. Meaning that a plane taking off must carry a much heavier fuel load.

2. FAE (Faroe Islands) has plenty of nearby alternates in Scotland and Norway. HLE has only Ascension 700 nm away. Meaning that every scheduled landing must be done with a heavy fuel load.

3. FAE has no need for tailwind landings.

4. Last but not least, RC (Atlantic Airways) serves much more traffic than HLE can ever dream of, due to much more population and the short trips making family visits and tourism a huge business. RC has always been able to buy a small fleet of the niche planes which serves them best. And during low seasons they have been innovative to find alternative work, such as charter flights from Denmark to skiing holiday destinations. At HLE they are looking at one day a week utilization of one plane, and practically zero possibility to use the right niche plane for alternative work during the other six days in the region.

drgmobile wrote:

If the Avro RJ is somehow better suited to windshear than the 737, this hasn't been explained.

Susceptibility to wind shear isn't key, but rather the landing distance. As I understand it they are initially looking to use runway 02 (from NNW) rather than 20. So they avoid the wind shear issues off the south facing cliffs, but at the expense of a likely tailwind. Which means you'll need more runway to stop. Presumably they'll take off in the opposite direction.
https://www.aviationtribune.com/ceo-int ... lines-ceo/

Didn't they already produce a production type of the RJX for British European, that never entered service? So rather than modify an existing RJ can they not just put that RJX into service? Or is that too expensive?

giblets wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

Viscount724 wrote:

Last one delivered 13 years ago (2003).

Which doesn't exclude that BAE could modify one ARJ with extra belly tanks similar to the RAF 32th sqn birds of the Royal Flight.

Back of the envelope calculations would indicate that with such a mod an ARJ would make the St. Helena - RSA roundtrip with Ascension as alternate with a half full cabin OR (not "and") 10 klb cargo/mail.

Problem is that the citizens of St. Helena are dreaming of a £600 roundtrip to RSA, and reasonably priced cargo and mail service. That sort of economy is impossible on a specialized plane with much reduced payload capability, which is next to impossible to utilize six days a week.

There is already the option for the 146/RJ series to increase the fuel available with front an rear baggage tanks and pannier tanks, full details and performance charts available (p26-27) :
https://www.regional-services.com/wp-co ... ations.pdf

With this extra fuel option the Avro RJ 100 clearly manages Windhoek. Again it matches the recommendation of the two pilots to use the frame with 50 pax only.

Considering the distance to alternates, what would be the range of CS100 at HLE?

XLA2008 wrote:

Didn't they already produce a production type of the RJX for British European, that never entered service? So rather than modify an existing RJ can they not just put that RJX into service? Or is that too expensive?

It's parked up in the aviation park at Manchester airport, a real shame, probably too expensive to bring it back to service now. Rumour is Airbus made them a great offer to stop them cannibalising the a319 business

bennett123 wrote:

Swiss is parking their RJ100 at Kemble. Airfleets shows seven so far.

However, Severnside Aviation only shows HB-IXT.

Seems the rest have already been scrapped.

Bit OT, but HB-IYS in the "Zurich Airport Shopping" scheme arrived at Cranfield last week having come off lease.

Al.

ODwyerPW wrote:

There was the plan of installing winglets on the BAe 146-300 when it was being defined to increase range, but operators wanted cheap price over capability, therefore it was not done. There was also the plan to use Honeywell AS977 on the cancelled RJX-100 that targeted 15% less fuel-burn for a 17% range increase (as well as maintenance improvements). Would anyone ever consider making these mods on an existing AVRO RJ100s to increase the range and payload so that it can do 2400+ nm with a good pax load (80) and payload! IF you are just going from St. Helena to South Africa, would you need to do allot of re-certification work to fly revenue pax?

Yeah, well, you'd have quite a bit of cert work to do for those two mods.

A big problem with any 146 mods, as I found out in the past, is that it was designed in a pre-CAD era, and, like nimrod, no two airframes are exactly the same.


IMO BAEs biggest mistake with the 146 was never offering a version with a rear door. It would have made a great little tactical airlifter.

Devilfish wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

Not initially, per the blog linked in the OP it's about twice weekly flights to Ascension to link up with the RAF flight that stops there:

Yes, a link to Ascension to meet the RR flight would/could be useful, but it's South Africa the Saints need to have access to.

The proponent was said to have access to around twenty BAe 146s for the shorter segments.

...20 Avros?? For what? They only need one...

oldannyboy wrote:

So..... we now have a beautiful airport. I think we should all forget about having low-cost or charter services coming to the island.

It would be a real shame if such a fine facility should go to waste... ...

It's a facility that exists merely to enable the Islanders (the Saints) to connect more easily with the "outer world" for medical, work and business reasons, and is not there to transform the island into the next Mallorca hopefully...

Nature seems to have a knack for spoiling people's best laid plans (or follies).....

And let's thank God and be grateful for that!

Those who are aimlessly rambling about "types best suited" for HLE, and "how about leasing a CS100 or a A319neo" etc, are all missing the point completely in this thread... this is no normal commercial operation we are talking about... This is not about being able to make money on a tourist route with the best/latest type of aircraft to bring the tourists in, this is all about giving the locals the means to reach South Africa -and to a lesser extent- Ascension, perhaps also Namibia, for work, health and economic matters...
The UK Government should make peace with the fact that the route should be subsidized. There is no way around this. No commercial operation will ever be economically viable given the tiny numbers involved.
Saint Helena is a remote heaven: beautiful, untouched, unspoilt. And it should be kept this way. It should be treated along the lines of places such as the Galapagos, and Easter Island.

pylon101 wrote:

I am wondering. If tourism develops (which seems to be anticipated,) how do they manage?
I myself would be going to the island when infrastructure is ready.

Hopefully tourism will NOT develop. This would simply kill the Island and its uniqueness.
The (very) few who make it to Saint Helena don't certainly go for the facilities, or for the quality of the infrastructure. There are no resorts, and hopefully this will remain so! They go there because it's a remote, untouched, out-of-this-world island with amazing bio-diversity and a very unique social and human ambience. It's a very, very special place.
Perhaps -no offence meant, please!- you would be much better off going somewhere more developed... there are lots of cheaper, nearer, and easier alternatives....

I know this would be more costly, but could they not have a BAE146 operating an St-Helena - Ascension route connecting on ward to an Ascension - UK route? Or is the population of Ascension just too small?

yhu wrote:

I know this would be more costly, but could they not have a BAE146 operating an St-Helena - Ascension route connecting on ward to an Ascension - UK route? Or is the population of Ascension just too small?

The facility at Ascension is a USAF base. They'll allow the occasional one-off such as this trip, which in reality was a ferry flight of a short range aircraft from Europe to South America, but it's not at all clear if they will allow a more frequent service. They are not in the business of being a FBO.

It is interesting to read in the blog post is that the proposal would be to have the aircraft be based on St Helena so it is available for emergency med-evacs. Seems the pilots will then become islanders. This also seems to be making the assumption that they can find a way to convince the USAF to allow them to use facilities at Ascension and connect with the weekly RAF flights. All of that might take some doing.

oldannyboy wrote:

Those who are aimlessly rambling about "types best suited" for HLE, and "how about leasing a CS100 or a A319neo" etc, are all missing the point completely in this thread... this is no normal commercial operation we are talking about... This is not about being able to make money on a tourist route with the best/latest type of aircraft to bring the tourists in, this is all about giving the locals the means to reach South Africa -and to a lesser extent- Ascension, perhaps also Namibia, for work, health and economic matters...
The UK Government should make peace with the fact that the route should be subsidized. There is no way around this. No commercial operation will ever be economically viable given the tiny numbers involved.
Saint Helena is a remote heaven: beautiful, untouched, unspoilt. And it should be kept this way. It should be treated along the lines of places such as the Galapagos, and Easter Island.

Actually nobody is aimlessly rambling it's you my friend who is missing the point! Subsidized or not you still need an aircraft that is able to operate in and out of the airport! With the range, capacity, short field ops... it's a unique airport requiring a specific criteria!! Even with subsidy you still need the right aircraft! Whether that be for locals or tourists... you still need the right aircraft type!

As for untouched... I wouldn't count my chickens, give it some time, club 18-30's will be there before you know it! Lol

oldannyboy wrote:

pylon101 wrote:

I am wondering. If tourism develops (which seems to be anticipated,) how do they manage?
I myself would be going to the island when infrastructure is ready.

Hopefully tourism will NOT develop. This would simply kill the Island and its uniqueness.
The (very) few who make it to Saint Helena don't certainly go for the facilities, or for the quality of the infrastructure. There are no resorts, and hopefully this will remain so! They go there because it's a remote, untouched, out-of-this-world island with amazing bio-diversity and a very unique social and human ambience. It's a very, very special place.
Perhaps -no offence meant, please!- you would be much better off going somewhere more developed... there are lots of cheaper, nearer, and easier alternatives....

And just to reply to this one... tourism will not develop if the island doesn't build the infrastructure to handle it... all very well and good having flights to and from but with no hotels for people to stay in, people aren't going to go! So in theory if tourism becomes a boom... then it's down to the people on the island wanting it to happen and building the facilities to make it happen! Their are plenty of places around the world that retain their beautiful uniqueness and tranquility and still sustain tourism, you need also to remind yourself that tourism yealds huge income for countries, many rely on it! You also need to remember that it's not the tourists that build the nightclubs and rip down the countryside for massive resorts is it... so telling someone to go somewhere better suited isn't really appropriate! Their are many ways the island can sustain tourism and still retain its charm and uniqueness as you put it!

XLA2008 wrote:

Subsidized or not you still need an aircraft that is able to operate in and out of the airport! With the range, capacity, short field ops... it's a unique airport requiring a specific criteria!! Even with subsidy you still need the right aircraft!!

Aircraft is not the problem, everything else is the problem. There is so much paper work to be done before any operations can be made. Ascension - St.Helena route would be the most likely route to be operated, but that itself is a problem. Ascension is a military base, not civilian airport. AirTanker operates weekly flights for RAF from UK to Falklands via Ascension. Atlantic Star wants to cooperate with AirTanker for obvious reasons.

I personally don't think there will be much traffic in and out of St.Helena. Atlantic Star could operate flights to Ascension and medevacs from St.Helena. Comair may not even start operations, since it just won't be economically viable for them. We may see some occasional charters from Europe in the future also.

Doing any major updates to the airport would be expensive and UK government definitely don't want project like BER in their hands.

"

As for untouched... I wouldn't count my chickens, give it some time, club 18-30's will be there before you know it! Lol

"[/quote]

...let's just hope not for once

XLA2008 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

pylon101 wrote:

I am wondering. If tourism develops (which seems to be anticipated,) how do they manage?
I myself would be going to the island when infrastructure is ready.

Hopefully tourism will NOT develop. This would simply kill the Island and its uniqueness.
The (very) few who make it to Saint Helena don't certainly go for the facilities, or for the quality of the infrastructure. There are no resorts, and hopefully this will remain so! They go there because it's a remote, untouched, out-of-this-world island with amazing bio-diversity and a very unique social and human ambience. It's a very, very special place.
Perhaps -no offence meant, please!- you would be much better off going somewhere more developed... there are lots of cheaper, nearer, and easier alternatives....

And just to reply to this one... tourism will not develop if the island doesn't build the infrastructure to handle it... all very well and good having flights to and from but with no hotels for people to stay in, people aren't going to go! So in theory if tourism becomes a boom... then it's down to the people on the island wanting it to happen and building the facilities to make it happen! Their are plenty of places around the world that retain their beautiful uniqueness and tranquility and still sustain tourism, you need also to remind yourself that tourism yealds huge income for countries, many rely on it! You also need to remember that it's not the tourists that build the nightclubs and rip down the countryside for massive resorts is it... so telling someone to go somewhere better suited isn't really appropriate! Their are many ways the island can sustain tourism and still retain its charm and uniqueness as you put it!

Well well...where to start... the "Island' would have to build the infrastructure..mmm... yes. Just with what money, pardon me? Are you at all familiar with St. Helena?? You are talking about a tourist BOOM is Saint Helena. Mm. Interesting.
Given what you write about the island (you seem to refer to it just like any other tourist island...) I feel you don't know at all -or certainly not enough- about the uniqueness of the island, both in terms of biodiversity, as well as the unique social sphere and human milieu of their inhabitants...their diversity, their heritage, and the way these have played a role through the centuries of isolation...

For those who think that: "Their are plenty of places around the world that retain their beautiful uniqueness and tranquility and still sustain tourism, you need also to remind yourself that tourism yealds huge income for countries, many rely on it! You also need to remember that it's not the tourists that build the nightclubs and rip down the countryside for massive resorts is it... so telling someone to go somewhere better suited isn't really appropriate! Their are many ways the island can sustain tourism and still retain its charm and uniqueness as you put it" I suggest a week in Mallorca.

Subsidized or not you still need an aircraft that is able to operate in and out of the airport! With the range, capacity, short field ops... it's a unique airport requiring a specific criteria!! Even with subsidy you still need the right aircraft! Whether that be for locals or tourists... you still need the right aircraft type!

That is the 146, no need to look around for anything else

oldannyboy wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Hopefully tourism will NOT develop. This would simply kill the Island and its uniqueness.
The (very) few who make it to Saint Helena don't certainly go for the facilities, or for the quality of the infrastructure. There are no resorts, and hopefully this will remain so! They go there because it's a remote, untouched, out-of-this-world island with amazing bio-diversity and a very unique social and human ambience. It's a very, very special place.
Perhaps -no offence meant, please!- you would be much better off going somewhere more developed... there are lots of cheaper, nearer, and easier alternatives....

And just to reply to this one... tourism will not develop if the island doesn't build the infrastructure to handle it... all very well and good having flights to and from but with no hotels for people to stay in, people aren't going to go! So in theory if tourism becomes a boom... then it's down to the people on the island wanting it to happen and building the facilities to make it happen! Their are plenty of places around the world that retain their beautiful uniqueness and tranquility and still sustain tourism, you need also to remind yourself that tourism yealds huge income for countries, many rely on it! You also need to remember that it's not the tourists that build the nightclubs and rip down the countryside for massive resorts is it... so telling someone to go somewhere better suited isn't really appropriate! Their are many ways the island can sustain tourism and still retain its charm and uniqueness as you put it!

Well well...where to start... the "Island' would have to build the infrastructure..mmm... yes. Just with what money, pardon me? Are you at all familiar with St. Helena?? You are talking about a tourist BOOM is Saint Helena. Mm. Interesting.
Given what you write about the island (you seem to refer to it just like any other tourist island...) I feel you don't know at all -or certainly not enough- about the uniqueness of the island, both in terms of biodiversity, as well as the unique social sphere and human milieu of their inhabitants...their diversity, their heritage, and the way these have played a role through the centuries of isolation...

For those who think that: "Their are plenty of places around the world that retain their beautiful uniqueness and tranquility and still sustain tourism, you need also to remind yourself that tourism yealds huge income for countries, many rely on it! You also need to remember that it's not the tourists that build the nightclubs and rip down the countryside for massive resorts is it... so telling someone to go somewhere better suited isn't really appropriate! Their are many ways the island can sustain tourism and still retain its charm and uniqueness as you put it" I suggest a week in Mallorca.

I didn't mention anywhere in my post about a "tourist boom" I merely stated that in order for there to be one infrastructure would need to be put in place, if it's not put in place there will be no "tourist boom"

You seem to slam tourism yet you also seem to forget the importance of tourism on many economies! You also seem to forget the effects it has on employment and income, there are many islands around the world that use a lot of tourism income to pay for preservation! Yes there are many places in Europe that have been destroyed by tourism but that is by no fault than their own! I mean unless you are a resident of St Helena then I believe you visited the island... meaning you were a tourist!!!! Lol

You seem to have it in your head that huge resorts will be built, with nightclubs and millions of drunk Europeans on party trips flocking to the island! Which is stupid and absurd and ridiculous! Can there not be a market for tourists such as yourself that want to visit and take in all this amazing beauty and culture this island has? Without compromising what the island is? I mean like I said you were a tourist to the island... and unless you class yourself as so unique that nobody else in the world could ever possibly want to vacation and enjoy the island the way you do?? If that's the case then your just plain idiotic!

Tourism totally aside considering they don't even have an operational airport at the moment, there is a lot of red tape and obstacles to over come, and getting past those would be a start before they even consider any tourism!

Dash9 wrote:

Would a CS100 do the trick here? Supposedly it has great runway performances and enough range to reach South Africa

I would say would an "SSJ" be a good plane here?

XLA2008 wrote:

I didn't mention anywhere in my post about a "tourist boom" I merely stated that in order for there to be one infrastructure would need to be put in place, if it's not put in place there will be no "tourist boom"

You seem to slam tourism yet you also seem to forget the importance of tourism on many economies! You also seem to forget the effects it has on employment and income, there are many islands around the world that use a lot of tourism income to pay for preservation! Yes there are many places in Europe that have been destroyed by tourism but that is by no fault than their own! I mean unless you are a resident of St Helena then I believe you visited the island... meaning you were a tourist!!!! Lol

You seem to have it in your head that huge resorts will be built, with nightclubs and millions of drunk Europeans on party trips flocking to the island! Which is stupid and absurd and ridiculous! Can there not be a market for tourists such as yourself that want to visit and take in all this amazing beauty and culture this island has? Without compromising what the island is? I mean like I said you were a tourist to the island... and unless you class yourself as so unique that nobody else in the world could ever possibly want to vacation and enjoy the island the way you do?? If that's the case then your just plain idiotic!

My reading of the linked blog and other resources say that one of the reasons there was so much disappointment on the island when the wind shear problem surfaced was because money had been spent improving tourist facilities in anticipation of getting tourists to visit via air in 2016 and now that's not going to happen.

I'm sure the scale of that investment as well as future ones can and will be debated. It seems the funding for the airport was made on the premise that the increase in tourism would allow the island to be self-sufficient, but I agree with the idea that if large scale tourism develops the island could easily lose a lot of its charm and then tourism will plummet.

It looks like St Helena would be a wonderful place to visit, but if it loses its character and its charm, it becomes just another island to check off the list, one with a very high cost base.

Revelation wrote:

XLA2008 wrote:

I didn't mention anywhere in my post about a "tourist boom" I merely stated that in order for there to be one infrastructure would need to be put in place, if it's not put in place there will be no "tourist boom"

You seem to slam tourism yet you also seem to forget the importance of tourism on many economies! You also seem to forget the effects it has on employment and income, there are many islands around the world that use a lot of tourism income to pay for preservation! Yes there are many places in Europe that have been destroyed by tourism but that is by no fault than their own! I mean unless you are a resident of St Helena then I believe you visited the island... meaning you were a tourist!!!! Lol

You seem to have it in your head that huge resorts will be built, with nightclubs and millions of drunk Europeans on party trips flocking to the island! Which is stupid and absurd and ridiculous! Can there not be a market for tourists such as yourself that want to visit and take in all this amazing beauty and culture this island has? Without compromising what the island is? I mean like I said you were a tourist to the island... and unless you class yourself as so unique that nobody else in the world could ever possibly want to vacation and enjoy the island the way you do?? If that's the case then your just plain idiotic!

My reading of the linked blog and other resources say that one of the reasons there was so much disappointment on the island when the wind shear problem surfaced was because money had been spent improving tourist facilities in anticipation of getting tourists to visit via air in 2016 and now that's not going to happen.

I'm sure the scale of that investment as well as future ones can and will be debated. It seems the funding for the airport was made on the premise that the increase in tourism would allow the island to be self-sufficient, but I agree with the idea that if large scale tourism develops the island could easily lose a lot of its charm and then tourism will plummet.

It looks like St Helena would be a wonderful place to visit, but if it loses its character and its charm, it becomes just another island to check off the list, one with a very high cost base.

I don't think it will become a huge tourist spot and loose its charm or character, I think it will be a unique destination for a niche market of tourists. But time will tell on that front!

There is nothing wrong with the people of St Helena wanting to bring tourists to the island to become self sufficient, it is their home and they have the right to decide! I'm all for tourism to the island... just managed appropriately and without too much compromise!

Did not know HB-IYS was at Cranfield.

Certainly safer than Kemble.

Revelation wrote:

It seems someone has mislaid the results of the wind studies, sigh...

All the more not to delay the progress of construction any further.....

oldannyboy wrote:

...20 Avros?? For what? They only need one...

Maybe to impress upon those awarding the franchise that the Islanders need not worry if the "one" in service went tech...as they have plenty of reserves to draw from. It may also imply that they can readily deploy additional aircraft should the requirement grow to more than one

The Islanders want a connection to the outside world. The connection to South Africa was that the ferry harbour used, for the now obsolete ferry, was Cape Town. Otherwise St Helena is a British Dependent Territory, a situation not much different from the Falkland Islands, with rather more inhabitants. So a shuttle to Ascension to get the connection to the UK would not be without logic. I assume that quite a few on a flight to Windhoek would than continue on the journey by flying on to the UK.

I still think that the next best bet after the Avro would be the A318. It has quite a slow landing speed, slower than any other A320 model and slower than any 737. Same wings like the A320 on much smaler lighter fuselage. It is als able to do steep approach. Combine that with enough range to go out to St Helena and back again to Windhoek or on to Ascension if a landing in St Helena is impossible arriving there. Again it would be possible to operate that frame with a light load, perhaps only 50 pax, to shorten needed landing distance.

XLA2008 wrote:

I don't think it will become a huge tourist spot and loose its charm or character, I think it will be a unique destination for a niche market of tourists. But time will tell on that front!

There is nothing wrong with the people of St Helena wanting to bring tourists to the island to become self sufficient, it is their home and they have the right to decide! I'm all for tourism to the island... just managed appropriately and without too much compromise!

I don't think a lot of this is the decision of the people of the island, I think a lot of it was the decision of the UK government. Wikipedia says:

The island had a monocrop economy until 1966, based on the cultivation and processing of New Zealand flax for rope and string. Saint Helena's economy is now weak, and is almost entirely sustained by aid from the British government. The public sector dominates the economy, accounting for about 50% of gross domestic product. Inflation was running at 4% in 2005. There have been increases in the cost of fuel, power and all imported goods.

The tourist industry is heavily based on the promotion of Napoleon's imprisonment. A golf course also exists and the possibility for sportfishing tourism is great. Three hotels operate on the island but the arrival of tourists is directly linked to the arrival and departure schedule of the RMS St Helena. Some 3,200 short-term visitors arrived on the island in 2013.

And:

Quoted at constant 2002 prices, GDP fell from £12 million in 1999–2000 to £11 million in 2005–06. Imports are mainly from the UK and South Africa and amounted to £6.4 million in 2004–05 (quoted on an FOB basis). Exports are much smaller, amounting to £0.2 million in 2004–05. Exports are mainly fish and coffee; Philatelic sales were £0.06 million in 2004–05. The limited number of visiting tourists spent about £0.4 million in 2004–05, representing a contribution to GDP of 3%.

Public expenditure rose from £10 million in 2001–02 to £12 million in 2005–06 to £28m in 2012–13. The contribution of UK budgetary aid to total SHG government expenditure rose from £4.6 million in to £6.4 million to £12.1 million over the same period. Wages and salaries represent about 38% of recurrent expenditure.

So the UK government is responsible for around half the GDP. I think odds are good that they are making the decisions.

It was getting to be time to replace the current Royal Mail Ship, and given the expense of doing that, it was decided to build the airport instead. Since we're all fans of aviation here we can see the benefit: the plane can go back and forth far more frequently so tourists can come and go for 1 week stays instead of the 4 weeks or so that the RMS took between visits, and the won't have to be at sea a week or so each leg of the journey. Also the airport can and does service medical evacuation flights.

But the rub is the hope is that tourism could eventually make the island self-sufficient, and without being an expert, that has to be a big ask. That seems to need a lot of airplanes doing a lot of trips with a lot of tourists. Tourism would have to grow from its current £0.4 per annum to tens of millions of pounds per annum, keeping in mind housing and feeding those tourists will take a lot of resources.

And the big paradox is as you bring in more tourists it is more difficult to preserve the uniqueness of the place, so it's hard to maintain the interest level and the premium prices that come with the exclusivity and uniqueness.

I think in the end I'm agreeing with others here, the airport is a great idea, but it seems the expectations are way too high.

mjoelnir wrote:

I still think that the next best bet after the Avro would be the A318. It has quite a slow landing speed, slower than any other A320 model and slower than any 737. Same wings like the A320 on much smaler lighter fuselage. It is als able to do steep approach.

The baby bus is my favorite plane. It will be 'interesting' (to say the least) to see it land at HLE with its 'tall tail'... ...


http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_g ... 3_2818.JPG

mjoelnir wrote:

Combine that with enough range to go out to St Helena and back again to Windhoek or on to Ascension if a landing in St Helena is impossible arriving there. Again it would be possible to operate that frame with a light load, perhaps only 50 pax, to shorten needed landing distance.

The HGW version seems to have enough range on paper to make it from JNB even, but would need to refuel on arrival at HLE. Does the airport on the island have provisions for refueling?



http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=HLE-CPT/JNB/ ... 0x360&PM=*

Devilfish wrote:

Does the airport on the island have provisions for refueling?

According to Wikipedia the airport has a:

bulk fuel installation for six million litres of diesel and aviation fuel

Apparently a tanker visits and offloads fuel off-shore. http://www.sainthelenaaccess.com/news/faqs/ mentions this while discussing the new wharf that was constructed as a part of the airport project:

Q. Will vessels be able to come alongside Rupert’s Wharf?

A. Yes, the wharf will accommodate vessels to the length of 105m with a draft of 5.5m.

Upon decommissioning of the RMS in mid-2016, a replacement shipping service will supply the island. The new shipping service will provide a vessel that can dock alongside the wharf in Rupert’s. Due to its size, the fuel tanker will continue to moor offshore.

People have been saying that the 737-500 is a good aircraft for the airport with its short field ops, but from what I have been reading and researching, why couldn't the 757 be a viable option? I get it's a much larger aircraft than the 737-500 but according to what I've been reading the 737-500 at MTOW needs 2300m of runway and the 757 at MTOW needs 1981m, now I get that the 737 will not be at MTOW due to the short runway and distance it would need to fly but at that same point neither would the 757... so wouldn't that mean that at below MTOW the 757 would need even less runway than the 735? It would enable use of far larger cargo capacity, as well reduced cabin capacity to say 180 for ETOPs, a lot of 757's travel trans atlantic, so why couldn't this be a viable option? Not to mention that there are plenty of ADHOC and charter companies that operate the 757 and could be contracted for the work... so could someone explain why this aircraft is not viable or good for the job? It has the range, it's good for short field ops, it is an extremely versatile aircraft, it has good cargo capacity, plenty of operators that can be chartered to operate the flights... it also has a much larger range for diversions if required, so any info would be good!