Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:16 am

Los Angeles to London is a huge O/D market. 3 of the 6 big studios are in the Valley, and are within 15 min from Burbank Airport. These, along with several other big business in the valley, can surely warrant a 787-8 flight. The airport has a lot less traffic than LAX. Getting from your car to the gate is way quicker at Burbank. With the way LA traffic is, it may even be quicker to go from Downtown to Burbank rather than to LAX.

So, is it possible? BA, on the 787-8? BUR-LHR and LHR-SNN-BUR (for customs and immigration). Would BA consider it? Have they? They can definitely charge a premium per seat over LAX.

BA is now going 3x daily to LAX, and AA is 2x daily. There clearly is solid demand.

The 787-8 can physically fit at BUR. FedEx and UPS regularly fly A300s into BUR. The 2 gates at the far end of terminal A could be combined to handle the wingspan and length of the 787-8.

At 4,727nm, BUR-LHR could possibly even be a route for a MOM aircraft.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:31 am

It might be economically viable, but I’m not sure even an excellent performing airplane like the 787-8 can do BUR-LHR with any kind of payload.
 
AWACSooner
Posts: 2571
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 12:35 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:38 am

Two words: RUNWAY LENGTH
 
flyguy84
Posts: 770
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:56 am

No.
SFO
 
jubguy3
Posts: 514
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:18 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:58 am

Burbank's runway is only 6900 feet. So no, its probably not physically feasible.

Who would you expect to run this flight? BUR doesnt have a single flight to mexico or canada, and only to New York JFK past texas. The busiest route that isnt in CA or a neighboring state is SeaTac with 154k pax/ year. I dont see the demand is, even if an airline like Norwegian ran it.
 
Yflyer
Posts: 1734
Joined: Sat Feb 17, 2007 4:05 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:06 am

It would definitely need a fuel stop, like BA's LCY-JFK flight. Except unlike BA's LCY flight where passengers clear US immigration during the fuel stop, there's no UK pre-clearance at any US airport (or any airport anywhere, as far as I know). Unless the UK decides to start offering pre-clearance somewhere, it wouldn't have any advantage over a connecting flight or driving to LAX.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:16 am

The simple answer - as a few reply mentioned, the runway length is not even there for a 787 to fly out of BUR with any viable payload.

It's also the same reason why LAX dominates LA basin traffic - there are simply no good alternatives. SNA and BUR suffered from short runway, LGB is heavily slot restricted, and ONT is just too far from anything - even though it can certainly handle TPAC and TATL flights (As CI will do).
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13462
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:41 am

AWACSooner wrote:
Two words: RUNWAY LENGTH

jubguy3 wrote:
Burbank's runway is only 6900 feet. So no, its probably not physically feasible.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

Runway length wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

BA routinely does MSY-LHR off 7000ft, and BY does BRS-CUN off of 6500ft-- these runways are both shorter than SXM's.

...yes these flights are about 500nm shorter than BUR-LHR would be, but keep in mind that the MSY flight still carries tons of cargo, and BRS flight uses a denser config, yet still does fine.

MSY is particularly noteworthy, because 10,100ft Rwy29 is available, but BA just doesn't bother with the long taxi. The 788 has phenomenal runway performance, especially for TATL.



VIDEO of MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy20 (cabin view)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxW9V0g-vY


MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy02 (external view)
https://www.facebook.com/analogspeedbir ... 409241712/


Sometimes DE will do MSY-FRA off the shorter runway with the 763ER as well. So it's not even just a 787 thing.

******************************
Runway proximity to terminals, tight taxiway turns, and lack of sufficient FIS facilities, would be the issue at BUR. And there's no way in hell that the NIMBYs are going to allow any of the above to change, any time soon. :(
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 807
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:52 am

LAX772LR wrote:
AWACSooner wrote:
Two words: RUNWAY LENGTH

jubguy3 wrote:
Burbank's runway is only 6900 feet. So no, its probably not physically feasible.

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

Runway length wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

BA routinely does MSY-LHR off 7000ft, and BY does BRS-CUN off of 6500ft-- these runways are both shorter than SXM's.

...yes these flights are about 500nm shorter than BUR-LHR would be, but keep in mind that the MSY flight still carries tons of cargo, and BRS flight uses a denser config, yet still does fine.

MSY is particularly noteworthy, because 10,100ft Rwy29 is available, but BA just doesn't bother with the long taxi. The 788 has phenomenal runway performance, especially for TATL.



VIDEO of MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy20 (cabin view)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmxW9V0g-vY


MSY-LHR off 7000ft Rwy02 (external view)
https://www.facebook.com/analogspeedbir ... 409241712/


Sometimes DE will do MSY-FRA off the shorter runway with the 763ER as well. So it's not even just a 787 thing.

******************************
Runway proximity to terminals, tight taxiway turns, and lack of sufficient FIS facilities, would be the issue at BUR. And there's no way in hell that the NIMBYs are going to allow any of the above to change, any time soon. :(


To be fair, BUR is quite a bit further away from LHR compared to MSY. If there was a weight penalty, I could see the 788 do the flight, but there is no way that it would be able to taxi and that airport.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B772/E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13462
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:58 am

KLMatSJC wrote:
To be fair, BUR is quite a bit further away from LHR compared to MSY. If there was a weight penalty, I could see the 788 do the flight, but there is no way that it would be able to taxi and that airport.

Both of which were directly addressed in my post......... so, there's that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:36 am

MTOW isn't limited strictly by runway length.

Runway length + obstacle climb limits (mountains 3 out of 4 quads) + summer temps make BUR unrealistic for long haul - even for the 788.

MSY has zero obstacle or temp issues, and has a much longer 10/28 when needed - which is likely more often than not.

How often is BA actually able to use 1/19 at MSY? Probably not that often.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13462
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:43 am

barney captain wrote:
obstacle climb limits

Southbound is IINM the most common commercial departure from BUR, so how's that really a problem?


barney captain wrote:
or temp issues

...New Orleans doesn't have temperature issues???? :eek: :eek:
That's certainly a new one, lol.

But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.

Though BA also leaves late at night, which wouldn't be a competitive option at BUR, so there's that.



barney captain wrote:
How often is BA actually able to use 1/19 at MSY? Probably not that often.

Actually, quite often.

Granted, they've used Rwy2/20 it for every departure for the last few weeks, due to repetitive closure of Rwy11/29; but even during regular ops, they generally just use whatever traffic's using.

Same for when they use the 789, which routinely swaps in for the 788 on any given week.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:56 am

Southbound is IINM the most common commercial departure from BUR, so how's that really a problem?


The Hollywood Hills are three miles off the departure end of 15 - it's a factor.

...New Orleans doesn't have temperature issues???? :eek::eek:
That's certainly a new one, lol.

But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.


BUR can regularly exceed 110F during the summer. MSY gets nowhere near that.

Regardless of your Youtube-Wikipedia research, you are mistaken in your understanding of the performance issues at BUR.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
User avatar
OA940
Posts: 1991
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:18 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:55 pm

With a stopover like OAK maybe.
A350/CSeries = bae
 
Androol
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:32 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:20 pm

I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
 
theSFOspotter
Posts: 178
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 9:51 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:35 pm

BUR doesn't even have an FIS facility, also no gate where they can park it within short walk of the terminal.
Q-400 A319 A320 B737-300/400/700/800/900ER B757-200/300 B787-8
 
cschleic
Posts: 1835
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 10:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:50 pm

barney captain wrote:
Southbound is IINM the most common commercial departure from BUR, so how's that really a problem?


The Hollywood Hills are three miles off the departure end of 15 - it's a factor.

...New Orleans doesn't have temperature issues???? :eek::eek:
That's certainly a new one, lol.

But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.


BUR can regularly exceed 110F during the summer. MSY gets nowhere near that.

Regardless of your Youtube-Wikipedia research, you are mistaken in your understanding of the performance issues at BUR.


Temperature true, but doesn't MSY have heavy humidity which makes a difference, too?

Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.


This plus the infrastructure issues seem to answer it. Would be fun, though, to board / deplane a 787 with old fashioned stairs from the ramp.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:55 pm

theSFOspotter wrote:
BUR doesn't even have an FIS facility, also no gate where they can park it within short walk of the terminal.


We all know there are a number of issues preventing overseas service from BUR. My guess is the OP was more asking if such a service could attract enough passengers and yield IF it were possible. I would say that BUR and SNA could each support one Europe non-stop if it were possible from those airports. Each have a large affluent population base of people who might prefer not having to go to a farther off airport. SJC is a similar situation, which does support a few overseas flights.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:57 pm

BUR has obstructions ..gas station that WN ran into once
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6361
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:17 pm

COSPN wrote:
BUR has obstructions ..gas station that WN ran into once


That was removed after the WN incident, so your attempt at a joke is outdated. ;)
 
Androol
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 5:32 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:32 pm

cschleic wrote:

Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.


This plus the infrastructure issues seem to answer it. Would be fun, though, to board / deplane a 787 with old fashioned stairs from the ramp.


It is quite common in many parts of the world. I boarded and deplaned a United 747 via stairs several times in Frankfurt. Also boarded and deplaned an A330 in Chengdu, China several times. Boarded a 787 via stairs in Oslo too.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:34 pm

So they moved the wall ?? They expanded BUR ?? Wow good


I thought stairs are illegal under the UA ADA. Must Be a ramp or jetway ...
Last edited by COSPN on Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
COSPN
Posts: 1838
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:35 pm

Stairs are a US ADA violation I think
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25006
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:43 pm

No, No, No.

Besides runway performance lets consider --

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

=

Enough said.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
GCT64
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:34 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:17 pm

Androol wrote:
cschleic wrote:

Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.


This plus the infrastructure issues seem to answer it. Would be fun, though, to board / deplane a 787 with old fashioned stairs from the ramp.


It is quite common in many parts of the world. I boarded and deplaned a United 747 via stairs several times in Frankfurt. Also boarded and deplaned an A330 in Chengdu, China several times. Boarded a 787 via stairs in Oslo too.


Boarded a BA 777 at LHR T5 using stairs just a few weeks ago: LHR-PVG
Flown in: A20N,A21N,A30B,A306,A310,A319,A320,A321,A332,A333,A343,A346,A359,A388,BA11,BU31,(..56 more types..),VC10,WESX
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:25 pm

Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.



Thank you.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:26 pm

LAXintl wrote:
No, No, No.

Besides runway performance lets consider --

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

=

Enough said.


No, that is not enough said.

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

The 2 end gates at Terminal A will fit a 787-8.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

This can be changed and upgraded.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:30 pm

kaitak744 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
No, No, No.

Besides runway performance lets consider --

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

=

Enough said.


No, that is not enough said.

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

The 2 end gates at Terminal A will fit a 787-8.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

This can be changed and upgraded.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.



You conveniently omitted the first and most important line in the quote -

Besides runway performance lets consider --


Anet has officially jumped the shark with this thread.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:55 pm

kaitak744 wrote:
o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.


At what cost? You realized that you'll have to built new taxiway (which at BUR likely mean have to acquired some land around). Either that or moved the whole runway further west. Neither is going to happen

kaitak744 wrote:
o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.


This has nothing to do with the runway pavement, but the arrestor system at the end of the runway. I believe to increase the design weight, you'll have to increase the length of the area, and in turn, shorten the runway even more.

kaitak744 wrote:
o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.


If BUR is really THAT great of an airport, airline would fight for any available slots to go there. But no, most airlines decided that it's not worth it to work within all those limits at BUR, and instead, just go into LAX.

And it's not just international carrier, either. You've one flight, a JFK red-eye on B6, going to location east of the Mississippi. Yep, that's it. No flights to MEX or GDL (The two Mexican destinations with the largest amount of traffic from LAX) or even leisure flight to SJD/PVR.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2570
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:09 pm

kaitak744 wrote:

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?



Because, however odd it seems to you (and many others) the US CBP insists on their right to re-screen passengers (and crew) who have been pre-cleared.
As far as CBP are concerned this right is non-negotiable and in the present climate there seems no possibility of this changing.
Their logic seems to be that if there was a defect in the preclearance process which is only discovered after takeoff, so that there could be people or items on board which weren't properly scanned, or if additional intelligence becomes available about individuals on board that arouses suspicions, people and baggage can't just wander off into the city, or board other flights.
You might think that the obvious solution is to divert the plane to somewhere that does have a permanently staffed FIS facility (presumably LAX in this case) but CBP has an uncompromising approach to this and applies the same standard everywhere.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 3634
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:13 pm

All the other things aside, BUR doesn't even have flights to Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Washington DC, and has one measly B6 flight to NYC.

I think getting their house in order in regards to Domestic should be their primary concern.
 
kaitak744
Topic Author
Posts: 2227
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:30 pm

barney captain wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
No, No, No.

Besides runway performance lets consider --

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

=

Enough said.


No, that is not enough said.

o Airport maximum allowed wingspan for runways is 171ft. The 787-8 is 197ft.

This can be changed and upgraded. Are we talking about taxiway clearance? There are special exceptions made all the time for A380s, even at LAX.

o Passenger terminal gates maximum allowed winspan is 117.5ft and why United when they briefly operated the 762 at BUR was parked across the airport on another ramp with passengers being bussed.

The 2 end gates at Terminal A will fit a 787-8.

o Fire and rescue coverage rating for airport is maximum ADG IV aircraft. The 787 is ADG V.

This can be changed and upgraded.

o There is no FIS coverage at BUR, and even for pre-clearance the airport would need facility to rescreen passengers if needed, and CBP would be willing to staff if needed.

Why do they need to "rescreen" if they are already cleared at SNN?

o Runway EMAS certified maximum design weight 321,200lbs. 787 operates up to 560,000lbs

What does that mean? None of the Burbank runways go over any bridges. The 787 per-wheel weight is not much higher than current aircraft serving the airport, so the actual pavement should not be an issue.

o Just because some studios are near the airport does not mean the traffic is generated there. Most executives and celebrities reside on places like West LA, Bel Air, Beverly Hills, all which are on the side of the hill towards LAX

If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX. If you are in downtown for example, traveling from your office to the aircraft gate will take A LOT less time at Burbank than at LAX.



You conveniently omitted the first and most important line in the quote -

Besides runway performance lets consider --


Anet has officially jumped the shark with this thread.



6,886ft. A 787-8 cannot take off with a reasonable payload to LHR on that runway? The Boeing airport planning documents, which have the takeoff - weight charts seem to show that it can do so, perhaps with a small penalty.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 5002
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:39 pm

This seems like total fiction, not based on any notion of reality.

kaitak744 wrote:
6,886ft. A 787-8 cannot take off with a reasonable payload to LHR on that runway? The Boeing airport planning documents, which have the takeoff - weight charts seem to show that it can do so, perhaps with a small penalty.


Have you considered terrain(engine out) clearance limitations? BUR is surrounded by hills.

Also as I recall a 737 cant even make it to Dallas during some wind periods from BUR and airlines must stop in places like ONT or LAS enroute for fuel.
mercure f-wtcc
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:43 pm

6,886ft. A 787-8 cannot take off with a reasonable payload to LHR on that runway? The Boeing airport planning documents, which have the takeoff - weight charts seem to show that it can do so, perhaps with a small penalty.


Again -

Not with the obstacles and not in the summer. Also remember that BUR is not exactly a SL airport at 775' MSL. The obstacle penalties become evident in the post by Androol below. Same piece of pavement and same temp, yet Rnwy 15 provides 12 tons more lift than 33. Obstacle limits are the same reason you can carry more lift off of 8L in LAS even with a 10kt tailwind, than you can going the opposite direction on 26R with a 10kt headwind.

Rocks matter.

Androol wrote:
I just ran some performance numbers from BUR using one of my company B788s. In standard conditions and calm winds the max T/O weight from runway 15 would be 189.9 metric tons, and from 33 it would be 178.3 metric tons. Given the need for about 50-55 metric tons of fuel, you would be left with only enough room for about 75-100 passengers plus bags and zero additional cargo. Not really economically feasible.
Southeast Of Disorder
 
winginit
Posts: 3066
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:10 pm

kaitak744 wrote:
No, that is not enough said.


Yes, it is really. Please stop fighting this.

kaitak744 wrote:
This can be changed and upgraded.


Got a chuckle out of that one - by whom exactly?

kaitak744 wrote:
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.


Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.
 
User avatar
FA9295
Posts: 1770
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:44 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:34 am

ONT would be more likely to get an LHR/LGW flight than BUR in my opinion...
 
johns624
Posts: 3075
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:44 am

How many business people go to the airport directly from work vs from their home?
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 3568
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:04 am

johns624 wrote:
How many business people go to the airport directly from work vs from their home?


Well, if you're on a business trip, it would be Airport -> Office/"Workplace" -> Airport. Hence all the talk about "Being close to business center".

winginit wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.


Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.


Another point I would add is that if all those business in LA really favor BUR that much, why is there only 1 single flight to JFK (and it's a red-eye on B6, not even a legacy carrier), and no flight to, let say, ORD? And even the DAL flight is 1/day vs. 7/day (4x WN, 3x VX/AS) from LAX. That tells you where the demand lies.
 
Jetmarc
Posts: 497
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:54 am

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:48 am

zakuivcustom wrote:
johns624 wrote:
How many business people go to the airport directly from work vs from their home?


Well, if you're on a business trip, it would be Airport -> Office/"Workplace" -> Airport. Hence all the talk about "Being close to business center".

winginit wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.


Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.


Another point I would add is that if all those business in LA really favor BUR that much, why is there only 1 single flight to JFK (and it's a red-eye on B6, not even a legacy carrier), and no flight to, let say, ORD? And even the DAL flight is 1/day vs. 7/day (4x WN, 3x VX/AS) from LAX. That tells you where the demand lies.


I agree... its not so much convenience of location as it is convenience of schedule. Unless they start offering multiple frequencies to each business destination, location of BUR doesnt matter much. This is exactly why B6 cut ORD from LGB. Chicago is a great business market and LGB is a convenient airport, but we couldnt compete with the schedules out of LAX to ORD and MDW that were almost hourly.
"Sucka, I'm gonna send you out on Knuckle Airlines. Fist Class!!" ~ Mr. T
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13462
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 7:14 am

barney captain wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
But yeah, MSY's average highs May-October exceed BUR by up to 9 degrees.

BUR can regularly exceed 110F during the summer.

Indeed, for a high it can... but that doesn't actually address what I just said, which BTW isn't from wiki, so no appeal-to-authority (as if you were someone important) automatically refutes that.

Consider Reply#15, that's an actual answer. ;)


winginit wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
If you know LA well, you will see that there are lot more business closer to BUR than to LAX.

Quantify that for us please - otherwise your statement is meaningless.

:checkmark:

Downtown is a straight shot down the 110+105 to LAX
Century City is Santa Monica to 405 to LAX
Culver City is 405 to LAX
Most of South Bay is 405 to LAX

....what "lot more business" is closer to BUR???
It's a pain in the ass, down a the 101/405 with no FasTrak (nor even HOV on the former) for nearly all of those areas to get to BUR.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
barney captain
Posts: 2376
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2001 5:47 pm

Re: Is BUR-LHR/LGW a commercially viable possibility?

Tue Nov 14, 2017 9:01 am

Indeed, for a high it can... but that doesn't actually address what I just said, which BTW isn't from wiki, so no appeal-to-authority (as if you were someone important) automatically refutes that.


Important? Me? Hardly. But I am someone who has operated as an airline pilot extensively in and out of BUR since 1988.

To quote you - "so there is that".

As far as the rest of your post - you have completely shifted from a performance based debate to one that seems to revolve around business juxtaposition - something I never even opined on.

Please though, carry on - I however am done with this absurdity.
Southeast Of Disorder

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos