An interesting article on LCY and the new Embraer range and the A220. https://aircraft-analytics.com/insights/efeature-5-2/

Notably, Airbus isn’t interested in certificating the A220-300 for LCY.

LCY is looking at getting the new E195-E2 certificated - KLM was specifically mentioned.

It also mentions that the A220-100 could operate JFK and the gulf hubs in a business class only configuration.

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Wouldn't the A220-300 be really either range or payload limited to fly out of LCY? I'd think Airbus would be interested if their airline customers were, so it's probably not being seriously looked at.

This is the first I heard about Airbus not certifying the a220 for Lcy.

Test flights were performed by Bombardier:
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/air ... -approval/

There are active sales campaigns that require LCY certification. heck Swiss already flies the a220 there.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swiss+a22 ... ORM=CHROMN

Pratt is working to sell Swiss, Lufthansa, and AirBaltic for the a220-300. Errr... on hold for the failures, but Pratt will sell it.

The E2-190 will do well at LCY. I thought the E2-195 had less payload capability than the E2-190 from LCY.

Your link required registration, so I didn't read.

lightsaber wrote:

This is the first I heard about Airbus not certifying the a220 for Lcy.

Test flights were performed by Bombardier:
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/air ... -approval/

There are active sales campaigns that require LCY certification. heck Swiss already flies the a220 there.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swiss+a22 ... ORM=CHROMN

Pratt is working to sell Swiss, Lufthansa, and AirBaltic for the a220-300. Errr... on hold for the failures, but Pratt will sell it.

The E2-190 will do well at LCY. I thought the E2-195 had less payload capability than the E2-190 from LCY.

Your link required registration, so I didn't read.

You misread it. The A220-100 is already certificated. It refers to the A220-300 which isn’t. You don’t need to register. Just click the X on the pop up and the article can be read.

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Where to exactly? LCY’s footprint can’t really be expanded. The runway has water at either end and then a bridge. Plus it requires a steep approach as it is because of the buildings near the airport.

lightsaber wrote:

This is the first I heard about Airbus not certifying the a220 for Lcy.

Test flights were performed by Bombardier:
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/air ... -approval/

There are active sales campaigns that require LCY certification. heck Swiss already flies the a220 there.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swiss+a22 ... ORM=CHROMN

Pratt is working to sell Swiss, Lufthansa, and AirBaltic for the a220-300. Errr... on hold for the failures, but Pratt will sell it.

The E2-190 will do well at LCY. I thought the E2-195 had less payload capability than the E2-190 from LCY.

Your link required registration, so I didn't read.

They aren’t interested in certifying the -300 for LCY. The -100 is certified and already operated. I imagine if the airlines were wanting to fly the 300 there would be a change of heart. Maybe even if needed a kind of SFP for the -300 that could improve performance on the short runway and or something similar to the A318 where some speedbrakes deploy on approach to enable the aircraft to fly the steep approach profile.

seansasLCY wrote:

Notably, Airbus isn’t interested in certificating the A220-300 for LCY.

The article states that Airbus has no plan to certify the A220-300 into LCY.

They would be interested if a potential customer asked for it.

seansasLCY wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Where to exactly? LCY’s footprint can’t really be expanded. The runway has water at either end and then a bridge. Plus it requires a steep approach as it is because of the buildings near the airport.

Sean my namesake, your being far too polite with your reply

We now have virtually a 50-50 split between business and leisure traffic which tends to surprise people who see London City as more of a business airport. It’s increasingly about business and leisure in combination and I think the next-generation jets will help us with the aim of adding more premium leisure markets, like the Canary Islands and Cyprus, which are just too challenging range-wise for the existing aircraft.”

The A220-100 is the largest aircraft operating from LCY in terms of capacity, with SWISS aircraft configured with 125 seats.”

I think society is changing. I suppose it goes hand in hand with concepts like Kylie Jenner is a self-made billionaire at the age of 21. You think why on Earth would anyone use a tiny airport in the center of London that can't handle a plane bigger than 125 seats for leisure travel. We sort of understand the concept of bankers who would pay to fly from JFK in a 32 lie-flat bed jet and land at LCY so they don't have the bother of taking a taxi from Heathrow . But who are these Lifestyle Mahārājas who can't be bothered to go to Heathrow or Gatwick for leisure travel?

Where do these people live? Are they in Shoreditch? Are they in the Barbican or Chelsea

PacoMartin wrote:

We now have virtually a 50-50 split between business and leisure traffic which tends to surprise people who see London City as more of a business airport. It’s increasingly about business and leisure in combination and I think the next-generation jets will help us with the aim of adding more premium leisure markets, like the Canary Islands and Cyprus, which are just too challenging range-wise for the existing aircraft.”

The A220-100 is the largest aircraft operating from LCY in terms of capacity, with SWISS aircraft configured with 125 seats.”

I think society is changing. I suppose it goes hand in hand with concepts like Kylie Jenner is a self-made billionaire at the age of 21. You think why on Earth would anyone use a tiny airport in the center of London that can't handle a plane bigger than 125 seats for leisure travel. We sort of understand the concept of bankers who would pay to fly from JFK in a 32 lie-flat bed jet and land at LCY so they don't have the bother of taking a taxi from Heathrow . But who are these Lifestyle Mahārājas who can't be bothered to go to Heathrow or Gatwick for leisure travel?

Where do these people live? Are they in Shoreditch? Are they in the Barbican or Chelsea

Regarding your last question, I'll pm you later with all their names and addresses if you like!

Honestly so many questions, you do realise that LCY caters to a wider audience, it's just not bankers as you rightly point out but the area around LCY and the gentrification of East London has had a huge affect on growth at the airport. Remember London is a huge global city and a wealthy one at that. LCY offers a variety of destinations suited to all demographics and it's also extremely convenient for East Londoners over LGW and especially LHR.

It'll be great once they have the full length taxiway. I am not surprised that people use it for leisure travel if the price is right, it's so easy to get to. Better than getting to LGW after an 1hr 15min taxi ride and then have the flight close while you are the check-in desk. Yes, I speak from experience.

If the taxiway goes in, then I think some A220-300 airlines may want it certified and I think they'll play along at that time.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Another BBD product has flown LCY-LAX! The G7500.

GF

What kind of payload was carried ?

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

I don't mean to be rude, but this shows a basic lack of any knowledge related to your question. There is nowhere the runway could go, and the ramp area is too small for widebodies anyway. Even if you had the runway infrastructure for a widebody, it wouldn't matter: there's nowhere to park them, the terminal can't handle that many passengers at once. There's no space to expand any of those, much less all of them.

hz747300 wrote:

It'll be great once they have the full length taxiway. I am not surprised that people use it for leisure travel if the price is right, it's so easy to get to. Better than getting to LGW after an 1hr 15min taxi ride and then have the flight close while you are the check-in desk. Yes, I speak from experience.

If the taxiway goes in, then I think some A220-300 airlines may want it certified and I think they'll play along at that time.

Too much plane for the runway, the A220-100 is a perfect fit.

IADCA wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

I don't mean to be rude, but this shows a basic lack of any knowledge related to your question. There is nowhere the runway could go, and the ramp area is too small for widebodies anyway. Even if you had the runway infrastructure for a widebody, it wouldn't matter: there's nowhere to park them, the terminal can't handle that many passengers at once. There's no space to expand any of those, much less all of them.

This whole thread shows how down hill this site has gone. Questions which a quick google search could answer, and a moderator who completely failed to read the linked article and critiqued the post. They really should bring back the charge to join. The site had a much higher level of discussion then.

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Have you ever seen a LCY approach or even a birds-eye view of the airports surrounding? It's simply impossible for LCY to have an expansion, it's surrounded by water and any widebodies departing will heavily disrupt the CBD of London (Canary Wharf)

PacoMartin wrote:

I think society is changing. I suppose it goes hand in hand with concepts like Kylie Jenner is a self-made billionaire at the age of 21. You think why on Earth would anyone use a tiny airport in the center of London that can't handle a plane bigger than 125 seats for leisure travel. We sort of understand the concept of bankers who would pay to fly from JFK in a 32 lie-flat bed jet and land at LCY so they don't have the bother of taking a taxi from Heathrow . But who are these Lifestyle Mahārājas who can't be bothered to go to Heathrow or Gatwick for leisure travel?

Where do these people live? Are they in Shoreditch? Are they in the Barbican or Chelsea

They live in the LCY catchment area. According to the previous CEO, whom I interviewed a couple of years ago: "Our leisure customers are our business customers wearing jeans and taking their families with them."

FLYERLHR wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Have you ever seen a LCY approach or even a birds-eye view of the airports surrounding? It's simply impossible for LCY to have an expansion, it's surrounded by water and any widebodies departing will heavily disrupt the CBD of London (Canary Wharf)

"Impossible" is a strong word. It is perfectly feasible from an engineering perspective to extend the runway in either direction by 1000+ feet and widen it as well (although westward expansion would further aggravate the steep approach angles). Adding even 1000 feet of runway would greatly expand the number of aircraft types that could operate out of it with meaningful payloads.

It will - of course - never happen because there is no interest in the city to expand it. LHR can't even get a third runway - there's zero chance the central airport gets expanded. But that is a political issue and has zero to do with the water surrounding LCY.

I can totally see the leisure appeal. If you live in East London and find some cheap flights for City breaks, why head over to Heathrow if you can just take the DLR. If you haven’t used it, it’s a breeze. I’ve done from the plane becoming stationary to the DLR in 13 minutes. And that includes going through customs and getting a bag from the hold (a lot of things were in my favour I’ll admit haha no other arrivals, first off the plane as I went out the back rather than the front, first case off etc) but it’s a lovely airport to use.

Again, as others have said, it’s never going to have widebodies. Even if they extended the runway but claiming land, the terminal couldn’t handle it and it just isn’t going to happen.

Concerning widebodies, LCYis quoted to between 1199 and 1508 m. Well, Rand Airport is 1712 m, but high (1671 m) and hot - and two 747s are parked at Rand.
A220-100 is quoted to need 1463 m runway at MTOW and ISA, and have a range of 3400 nm with 120 passengers at that. Since A220-100 has a range of only 2000 nm out of LCY with 116 passengers, clearly the LCY usable runway is less than 1463 m. What is the usable runway length and A220-100 MTOW at LCY?
Same A220-100 at LCY would reach 4000 nm at "all-business" configuration. How many passengers does that "3600 kg payload" mean?
At runway-limited TOW and 3600 kg payload, does A220-100 fill the standard fuel tanks, or not?

Folks do not discuss other users. This is your warning.

seansasLCY wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

This is the first I heard about Airbus not certifying the a220 for Lcy.

Test flights were performed by Bombardier:
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/air ... -approval/

There are active sales campaigns that require LCY certification. heck Swiss already flies the a220 there.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=swiss+a22 ... ORM=CHROMN

Pratt is working to sell Swiss, Lufthansa, and AirBaltic for the a220-300. Errr... on hold for the failures, but Pratt will sell it.

The E2-190 will do well at LCY. I thought the E2-195 had less payload capability than the E2-190 from LCY.

Your link required registration, so I didn't read.

You misread it. The A220-100 is already certificated. It refers to the A220-300 which isn’t. You don’t need to register. Just click the X on the pop up and the article can be read.

That didn't work on my phone.
There should be enough of a summary in an op post to prevent confusion.

As to A220-300, there is active work on improving short field performance for LCY. Customer interest is there and soon new gates.

Lightsaber

chornedsnorkack wrote:

Concerning widebodies, LCYis quoted to between 1199 and 1508 m. Well, Rand Airport is 1712 m, but high (1671 m) and hot - and two 747s are parked at Rand.
A220-100 is quoted to need 1463 m runway at MTOW and ISA, and have a range of 3400 nm with 120 passengers at that. Since A220-100 has a range of only 2000 nm out of LCY with 116 passengers, clearly the LCY usable runway is less than 1463 m. What is the usable runway length and A220-100 MTOW at LCY?
Same A220-100 at LCY would reach 4000 nm at "all-business" configuration. How many passengers does that "3600 kg payload" mean?
At runway-limited TOW and 3600 kg payload, does A220-100 fill the standard fuel tanks, or not?

Typical passenger assumption is 105kg per passenger, including bags. Some use as little as 95kg per pax.

Lightsaber

From the article, there's a point made about an all-business layout for the A220. To JFK, perhaps IAD and BOS. Would there be other destinations in Europe or the Middle East that are appealing for this layout? Thanks.

seat1a wrote:

From the article, there's a point made about an all-business layout for the A220. To JFK, perhaps IAD and BOS. Would there be other destinations in Europe or the Middle East that are appealing for this layout? Thanks.

In New York, La Guardia has a perimetre rule that only has exception for Saturdays.
How about Toronto? Exactly how does the runway limited takeoff weight at Toronto Island compare against London City?
All of Europe can be reached in 2000 nm, full payload. Middle East... Persian Gulf airports. And as far as Pakistan and Northwest India (Delhi, but not Calcutta or Madras). Does Subcontinent have eligible premium heavy destinations?

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Max Q wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Another BBD product has flown LCY-LAX! The G7500.

GF

What kind of payload was carried ?

Four, bizjet payload. Crossed at M.85, F430/470.

Impressive aircraft

seansasLCY wrote:

LCY is looking at getting the new E195-E2 certificated - KLM was specifically mentioned.

Might be part of their deal. I guess they don't want to keep a few E190's just for LCY. Nine flights a day, I guess they would like to use bigger planes. Is 1199m (TODA) enough for the E2-195? AMS isn't exactly far away.

Never fails to amaze me that so many netters who have never been to the KGV have strong opinions on LCY.
As for being possible to extend the runway by 1000ft, the obstacle clearance rules would suggest we might need to demolish 1 Canada Sq and much of the rest of the Wharf.
It’s possible in engineering terms to build a third runway at 90 degrees at LHR into Feltham. But you know, context.......

AndyEastMids wrote:

They live in the LCY catchment area. According to the previous CEO, whom I interviewed a couple of years ago: "Our leisure customers are our business customers wearing jeans and taking their families with them."

I would assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business.

Nautical Miles (top 10 destinations from LCY)
181 AMS Amsterdam
294 EDI Edinburgh
259 DUB Dublin
411 ZRH Zürich
517 LIN Milan (Milano)
336 FRA Frankfurt
307 GLA Glasgow
397 GVA Geneva
295 BFS Belfast
261 LUX Luxembourg
325.8 nm average destination (181-517 nm )

But it is one thing to fly 181 nm to Amsterdam on the corporate credit card where there is a high value to doing the round trip in a single day. If you are working in Canary wharf the trip to Heathrow could take longer than the flight. It is 11 minutes from the Poplar DLR station near Canary Wharf to the LCY DLR station.

But it is quite another thing to take the entire family and fly 911 nm to Malaga Spain for a beach vacation on your personal dime. I think even people with big expense accounts would balk at the price to fly on such small jets from an airport convenient to work.

PacoMartin wrote:

AndyEastMids wrote:

They live in the LCY catchment area. According to the previous CEO, whom I interviewed a couple of years ago: "Our leisure customers are our business customers wearing jeans and taking their families with them."

I would assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business.

Nautical Miles (top 10 destinations from LCY)
181 AMS Amsterdam
294 EDI Edinburgh
259 DUB Dublin
411 ZRH Zürich
517 LIN Milan (Milano)
336 FRA Frankfurt
307 GLA Glasgow
397 GVA Geneva
295 BFS Belfast
261 LUX Luxembourg
325.8 nm average destination (181-517 nm )

But it is one thing to fly 181 nm to Amsterdam on the corporate credit card where there is a high value to doing the round trip in a single day. If you are working in Canary wharf the trip to Heathrow could take longer than the flight. It is 11 minutes from the Poplar DLR station near Canary Wharf to the LCY DLR station.

But it is quite another thing to take the entire family and fly 911 nm to Malaga Spain for a beach vacation on your personal dime. I think even people with big expense accounts would balk at the price to fly on such small jets from an airport convenient to work.

I don't understand what you mean by "assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business". Have you seen the destinations flown from LCY? There is a huge tourist market now from LCY.

Ibiza, Malaga, Palma, Bergerac, Chambéry, Faro, Granada, Menorca, Mykonos, Quimper, Santorini, Skiathos, Split - All are huge tourist destinations.

During the summer, BA flies 4 times a day on Fridays to Ibiza from LCY and at least once a day the rest of the week. LCY recently said there is now a 50/50 split between business and leisure passengers.

Yeah I’d have to disagree too. I’m an entirely leisure customer that has used LCY multiple times. Much like regular pax don’t really care if their 772 is subbed for a 773 or whatever, I don’t think they’d really care which LON airport they’d take off from within reason. If the price is right and LCY has a flight to Malaga, why would you pay more to use LHR or LGW? I’d also wager that many families using it for the first time would be keen to use it again as it’s so easy to use.

seansasLCY wrote:

PacoMartin wrote:

AndyEastMids wrote:

They live in the LCY catchment area. According to the previous CEO, whom I interviewed a couple of years ago: "Our leisure customers are our business customers wearing jeans and taking their families with them."

I would assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business.

Nautical Miles (top 10 destinations from LCY)
181 AMS Amsterdam
294 EDI Edinburgh
259 DUB Dublin
411 ZRH Zürich
517 LIN Milan (Milano)
336 FRA Frankfurt
307 GLA Glasgow
397 GVA Geneva
295 BFS Belfast
261 LUX Luxembourg
325.8 nm average destination (181-517 nm )

But it is one thing to fly 181 nm to Amsterdam on the corporate credit card where there is a high value to doing the round trip in a single day. If you are working in Canary wharf the trip to Heathrow could take longer than the flight. It is 11 minutes from the Poplar DLR station near Canary Wharf to the LCY DLR station.

But it is quite another thing to take the entire family and fly 911 nm to Malaga Spain for a beach vacation on your personal dime. I think even people with big expense accounts would balk at the price to fly on such small jets from an airport convenient to work.

I don't understand what you mean by "assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business". Have you seen the destinations flown from LCY? There is a huge tourist market now from LCY.

Ibiza, Malaga, Palma, Bergerac, Chambéry, Faro, Granada, Menorca, Mykonos, Quimper, Santorini, Skiathos, Split - All are huge tourist destinations.

During the summer, BA flies 4 times a day on Fridays to Ibiza from LCY and at least once a day the rest of the week. LCY recently said there is now a 50/50 split between business and leisure passengers.

I was about to make the point about flights to the likes of Ibiza, Mykonos and Skiathos, where the business demand is right near zero. There's no reason why people wouldn't use LCY for leisure. It's closer ti the centre of London than any other airport serving it and you avoid the hustle of the others as well.

OA940 wrote:

seansasLCY wrote:

PacoMartin wrote:

I would assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business.

Nautical Miles (top 10 destinations from LCY)
181 AMS Amsterdam
294 EDI Edinburgh
259 DUB Dublin
411 ZRH Zürich
517 LIN Milan (Milano)
336 FRA Frankfurt
307 GLA Glasgow
397 GVA Geneva
295 BFS Belfast
261 LUX Luxembourg
325.8 nm average destination (181-517 nm )

But it is one thing to fly 181 nm to Amsterdam on the corporate credit card where there is a high value to doing the round trip in a single day. If you are working in Canary wharf the trip to Heathrow could take longer than the flight. It is 11 minutes from the Poplar DLR station near Canary Wharf to the LCY DLR station.

But it is quite another thing to take the entire family and fly 911 nm to Malaga Spain for a beach vacation on your personal dime. I think even people with big expense accounts would balk at the price to fly on such small jets from an airport convenient to work.

I don't understand what you mean by "assume that LCY has no strictly leisure customers. You would only fly out of their if you were used to the airport for business". Have you seen the destinations flown from LCY? There is a huge tourist market now from LCY.

Ibiza, Malaga, Palma, Bergerac, Chambéry, Faro, Granada, Menorca, Mykonos, Quimper, Santorini, Skiathos, Split - All are huge tourist destinations.

During the summer, BA flies 4 times a day on Fridays to Ibiza from LCY and at least once a day the rest of the week. LCY recently said there is now a 50/50 split between business and leisure passengers.

I was about to make the point about flights to the likes of Ibiza, Mykonos and Skiathos, where the business demand is right near zero. There's no reason why people wouldn't use LCY for leisure. It's closer ti the centre of London than any other airport serving it and you avoid the hustle of the others as well.

Absolutely, not to mention the number of leisure/VFR destinations that can be reached with a connection. I don't fly for business, but I've used LCY many times for personal travel as I can get there in about 30 minutes, versus about 90 minutes to LHR, LGW, STN, and probably 2 hours or more to LTN.

QR1350 wrote:

If the price is right and LCY has a flight to Malaga, why would you pay more to use LHR or LGW?

But that is a big qualifier that "the price is right".

There is only one city in the USA with three major airports. Washington DC has Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (downtown), Washington Dulles, and BWI. There is a perimeter on Washington National of 1250 miles and no international flights (so Cancun or Caribbean is out of the question). However, most people go to larger airports in the suburbs for leisure flying. And in Washington DC, the suburban airports are only slightly larger than the downtown airport. BWI is 17.6% larger than Washington National, and Dulles is 2.2% larger than Washington National for 2018.

In London the ratio of passengers to LCY is not just a few percentage points, but multiples:
LHR =16.6 x LCY
LGW=9.6 x LCY
STN=5.8 x LCY
LTN=3.4 x LCY

I am not arguing the point that what is convenient for business flyers is also convenient for families. Convenience normally comes at a huge price. When I look online for prices to leisure destinations like Malaga it seems that prices are 3X from LCY compared LGW. Combine that with the fact that as a family there are usually at least 3 people vs 1 person for a business flight, and also that leisure flying is usually paid on your own dime (although sometimes it is frequent flyer miles).

OA940 wrote:

I was about to make the point about flights to the likes of Ibiza, Mykonos and Skiathos, where the business demand is right near zero.

And BACF do very well with the Greek flights, good loads even with prices which could bring a tear to ones eye.

Give or take a few days where LCY was “too hot”, and had to leave some pax and bags behind, the flights are near enough full every time. Even manages to make it back from JSI with pax, bags, fuel and a full tank of water, which is more than can be said for TUI and Thomas Cook this summer who were constantly stopping on the way home for fuel.

I recently wanted to fly to Malaga and return, the prices were very similar for LHR, LGW and LCY, LCY won out for two reasons, firstly I live near Cambridge and LCY is the easiest and quickest to get to by road, secondly the flight times were better, a 09.45 departure saw us on the beach by 15.30. LGW & LHR flights either departed so early we would need to stay overnight near the airport, or so late we effectively lost a day. Added bonus is that LCY is so quick, on our return we went from the plane to outside with our checked bags in less than 20 minutes.

eagles94 wrote:

OA940 wrote:

I was about to make the point about flights to the likes of Ibiza, Mykonos and Skiathos, where the business demand is right near zero.

And BACF do very well with the Greek flights, good loads even with prices which could bring a tear to ones eye.

Give or take a few days where LCY was “too hot”, and had to leave some pax and bags behind, the flights are near enough full every time. Even manages to make it back from JSI with pax, bags, fuel and a full tank of water, which is more than can be said for TUI and Thomas Cook this summer who were constantly stopping on the way home for fuel.

I actually found out this summer they were flying to JSI and JMK and I was pretty surprised they could operate a 190 profitably on that. And, like you said, the prices are comparative to other FSC flights to these destinations

Have to wonder if some posters look up the basics of City before writing.

LCY has made a major push to expand leisure flying - both warm weather and cold weather like ski season. I've flown from there many times for work but also repeatedly for holidays in Malaga, Amsterdam, Rome, Geneva, etc. Good seasonal deals and perks like bringing skis for free during winter make a difference.

The people flying from City aren't just bankers, either. I live in Northwest London and find hopping on the Jubilee line and DLR (or on the Tube from the West End, Southbank/London Bridge, the City, East London or Essex) is easier and cheaper than Paddington and the Heathrow Express, even though Heathrow is theoretically the same length of journey. The ability to get to City just before a flight makes a difference, and fares are often comparable too.

A220-100 would take over the entire airport. Believe me.

ewt340 wrote:

A220-100 would take over the entire airport. Believe me.

It has the potentiality but don't forget that in Europe just Swiss and airBaltic are using the airplane so far.
There will be new operators but in my opinion LCY will be mostly operated by Dash 8-400 and E-170/190 for years.

Cunard wrote:

seansasLCY wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

Where to exactly? LCY’s footprint can’t really be expanded. The runway has water at either end and then a bridge. Plus it requires a steep approach as it is because of the buildings near the airport.

Sean my namesake, your being far too polite with your reply

Poster chunhimlai may not know anything about London City Airport, or about the entire United Kingdom for all I know, but I took his/her "Why not widebody LCY?" as a red cape to the bull in the nature of "Why not pave every square millimeter of the earth?"

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I doubt any wide body could be steep approach approved.

Could you imagine an A380 coming into land at LCY!

chunhimlai wrote:

Why not extend runway to allow widebodies?

LCY can just about handle the A318. It would never be able to handle a wide-body nor would the space around the runway allow Widebody ops, let alone expanding the apron to handle widebodied aircraft.

EXT is more likely to see 6 runways than LCY handle widebodies. LOL.

MikeMidd2001 wrote:

Have to wonder if some posters look up the basics of City before writing.

Exclusivity and convenience come at a cost. It's a fundamental rule of economics.

LCY is a tiny airport with small planes conveniently located near central city. The other airports are much larger, harder to get to, and carry far more people on larger jets.

seansasLCY wrote:

Where to exactly? LCY’s footprint can’t really be expanded. The runway has water at either end and then a bridge. Plus it requires a steep approach as it is because of the buildings near the airport.

The City Airport was proposed at the same time as the Docklands redevelopment scheme, and I've often wondered who had the bright idea of having an airport with a runway that pointed directly at a series of 800-foot buildings on the Isle of Dogs, not much more than a mile away to the west. To be fair, there was no other position or direction possible for the runway, but when I see planes going in or out of the airport I can't help thinking just how close they get to the tall buildings.