Ah it wasn’t a problem when LCY was only ever going to see the likes of the world’s quietest airliner in the Dash 7 or a future replacement. No one really thought they’d be flying A320 family jets onto the King George V dock. The weekend closure is the next to go.

what's the story with the weekend closure? I never understood why..

A day of respite from the noise. The airport was built across the road from residential homes, in the mid 80s, on a promise of no jets, ever. Plus ca change

PacoMartin wrote:

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).

Regardless of your mistake about the number of cities in the US with 3 airports (New York, LA, and even SF say hi - if you're counting BWI for DC, you probably need to include both SJC and OAK for SF), there is very little comparable between LCY and DCA, nor between LHR and IAD except in broad strokes. As someone who uses all four of those airports with some frequency, I can pretty confidently say that. LCY is so limited by its tiny land area that you simply can't really compare it to anything else except the old HKG. It's really that much of a unicorn. Hell, it's hard to even turn around an E190 on the ramp. Meanwhile DCA handles 321s and 757s easily, including on transcons, and can (and has on occasion) handled 763s.

The entirety of LCY is about 120 acres. To give you an idea, Kai Tak (old HKG) was about 540 acres. DCA is well over 700 acres and the main runway does not have obstructions on either end. Infrastructure-wise DCA could handle many more passengers than it does; you'd just need to convert a bunch of RJ slots to mainline. The gate, ramp, runway, and terminal space is there to handle it.

Also, DCA has a fair number of beyond-perimeter flights and also does have some international to places with pre-clearance (YYZ, YOW, YUL, BDA, NAS). Plus, it still has a ton of leisure flights - those 10+ daily flights to MCO, most of which are on 737/32x, for example, and the 11 (I think) different destinations in Florida are predominantly leisure traffic.

But to get to your point about prices and LCY, you're just looking at a rare bird: the price-insensitive leisure traveler. It is difficult to explain how much money there is in London. There are enough people there for whom the fact that it costs 200 more pounds per person doesn't really matter that it justifies leisure flights from LCY.

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.

Search the user's post history for their airport expansion plans. One of them involves razing a third of New York City for a combined airport, no reason why it couldn't happen in London!

LCY reminds me of a (land locked) aircraft carrier

The De Havilland DHC-8 400 if it ever gets the more economic pw150c engines and slight stretch in length would be a great plane for flying in and out of London City. Maybe we'll hear something in the coming month about the new engine, maybe not a stretch.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ce-460454/

Maybe REKKOF will consider developing a F50 neo?

Flew couple of times to LCY from various EU capitals and always appreciated the very short time you spent in the terminal compared to other big airports.

Does some airports with small runnways (1500-1600m) where mostly jet aircraft can't go (apart A220-100/318 and RJs) located nearby City Centers exists over Europe ?

A380MSN004 wrote:

Flew couple of times to LCY from various EU capitals and always appreciated the very short time you spent in the terminal compared to other big airports.

Does some airports with small runnways (1500-1600m) where mostly jet aircraft can't go (apart A220-100/318 and RJs) located nearby City Centers exists over Europe ?

BMA is a prime example.

I've used LCY for leisure several times from GVA. I love the CS1 on LX but I do miss giggling at the hairdryers hanging off the wings of the jumbolino.

As IADCA said you can't compare LCY to DCA. Maybe to YTZ or CGH. The latter is equally sporty on the approach and they'd actually land 762s but after the accident in 2007 is limited to mid-size narrowbodies.

CPHFF wrote:

A380MSN004 wrote:

Flew couple of times to LCY from various EU capitals and always appreciated the very short time you spent in the terminal compared to other big airports.

Does some airports with small runnways (1500-1600m) where mostly jet aircraft can't go (apart A220-100/318 and RJs) located nearby City Centers exists over Europe ?

BMA is a prime example.

An airline ordered CSeries for BMA, but seems to have cancelled.

There was a proposed start up airline that was going to fly A220 long haul business class out of LCY but it seems to have fizzled out - ODYSSEY AIRLINES LTD - http://www.flyody.com

LCY will reach its maximum capacity soon due the physical constraints of its location. It has limited ramp space, it has an unusual way of parking aircraft as they taxi in and then do a sharp turn to face out again - so no push back trucks are required.

In addition to the scheduled flights there is the Jet Centre with many private jet movements.

As other posters have mentioned it is super convenient for those in East London.

The steep approach is also worth of the price of the ticket, its the nearest you will get to the feeling of landing on an aircraft carrier

chornedsnorkack wrote:

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?

Unless you plan on flying Europe-YTZ in a Q400, it ain't going to happen. The residents and politicians living near Billy Bishop will never agree to a runway extension for jets.

Is there any reason why one or all US3 would not want to serve LCY from JFK/EWR or IAD or BOS? United is at a disadvantage due to AA & BA (maybe Delta too?)
Perhaps just dreaming but if UA did this from EWR & IAD it would be very enticing (I would think) from both EWR & IAD. Don’t tell me! Scope clause?
I realize they currently do not have the equipment and may not want 8 A220’s
But if if those LCY flights being fed by ORD, IAH, SFO/LAX and ALL other cities they serve it would seem like an easy fill, a money maker and more cachê to complement the all High J 767s.
But despite those nice new 763’s to avoid morning taxis or train from LHR could be extremely attractive in an all or mostly business configuration. (???)

ZazuPIT wrote:

chornedsnorkack wrote:

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?

Unless you plan on flying Europe-YTZ in a Q400, it ain't going to happen. The residents and politicians living near Billy Bishop will never agree to a runway extension for jets.

My point is, seeing that what was under consideration was an A220-100 with restricted TOW due to restricted, all-premium payload, could such an A220 jet operate from Billy Bishop runway as is, no runway extension? Unlike LCY, Toronto does not have steep approach buildings ahead, so is the restricted TOW at Billy Bishop existing runway in the end bigger than at LCY?

seat1a wrote:

ZazuPIT wrote:

chornedsnorkack wrote:

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?

Unless you plan on flying Europe-YTZ in a Q400, it ain't going to happen. The residents and politicians living near Billy Bishop will never agree to a runway extension for jets.

Would LCY-DUB work? CAI? Curious if there were non-North America routes that may work for the 220

LCY-DUB works fine right now, must be close to 20 daily flights with Cityflyer & Aer Lingus (cityjet) flying it. DXB is a different question all together...

chornedsnorkack wrote:

ZazuPIT wrote:

chornedsnorkack wrote:

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?

Unless you plan on flying Europe-YTZ in a Q400, it ain't going to happen. The residents and politicians living near Billy Bishop will never agree to a runway extension for jets.

My point is, seeing that what was under consideration was an A220-100 with restricted TOW due to restricted, all-premium payload, could such an A220 jet operate from Billy Bishop runway as is, no runway extension? Unlike LCY, Toronto does not have steep approach buildings ahead, so is the restricted TOW at Billy Bishop existing runway in the end bigger than at LCY?

Someone more familiar with Toronto politics may have a better explanation. All I know for sure is when Porter ordered it's then C-Series aircraft, it did so with the assumption that YTZ runways would be extended for longer range ops. Based on everything I have read, and from speaking with a friend in Toronto, there is a loud and vocal contingent that is hell bent on keeping jets out of that airport.

The runway at YTZ is 300m shorter than LCY for one. So you couldn't do the distance with a useable payload. And for two, jets aren't allowed at YTZ (despite proof the CS is no louder than the Q) and the NIMBYs won't allow a runway extension either. We were close a few years back before the political winds changed, see archived news articles for Porter Airline's proposed expansion a few years back. But those plans are now all dead and buried.

PacoMartin wrote:

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).

I think you're overestimating the price differences. Certainly you are for DCA vs IAD/BWI -- flights out of DCA are often very inexpensive, and several carriers run large portfolios of leisure flights from DCA.

Also, if you're comparing base fares for LCY, they can be misleading. The base fare on leisure flights ex-LON is so low that it can really amplify what are ultimately fairly insignificant differences. Looking at your LCY-AGP example -- looking at some random dates in May, it's true that the base BA fare LCY-AGP is £159 vs £79 on FR STN-AGP. But most of those leisure travelers will want to check luggage, at least; if you compare a fare that includes baggage and seat selection, BA actually ends up cheaper on the same flights (£188 vs £221).

Even if you did compare that difference in base fares -- £80pp (actually more like £65 when you factor in the higher cost of getting to STN) isn't that big a difference in the context of a week's holiday budget.

SwissCanuck wrote:

The runway at YTZ is 300m shorter than LCY for one. So you couldn't do the distance with a useable payload.

That´s nominal length, though. With the buildings on the approaches of LCY, how does the usable length and TOW compare?

dtremit wrote:

I think you're overestimating the price differences. Certainly you are for DCA vs IAD/BWI -- flights out of DCA are often very inexpensive, and several carriers run large portfolios of leisure flights from DCA.

Also, if you're comparing base fares for LCY, they can be misleading. The base fare on leisure flights ex-LON is so low that it can really amplify what are ultimately fairly insignificant differences. Looking at your LCY-AGP example -- looking at some random dates in May, it's true that the base BA fare LCY-AGP is £159 vs £79 on FR STN-AGP. But most of those leisure travelers will want to check luggage, at least; if you compare a fare that includes baggage and seat selection, BA actually ends up cheaper on the same flights (£188 vs £221).

Even if you did compare that difference in base fares -- £80pp (actually more like £65 when you factor in the higher cost of getting to STN) isn't that big a difference in the context of a week's holiday budget.

DCA Perimeter Rule: The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport.

DCA to DFW is 1,192 miles (Dallas is inside the perimeter)
DCA to IAH is 1,208 miles (Houston is inside the perimeter)
DCA to AUS is 1,315 miles (Austin is outside the perimeter)

In 2017 DCA had 4.4% more passengers than IAD, and in 2018 DCA had -2.2% fewer passengers than IAD. So for practical purposes they are roughly the same size. This similarity is in spite of the DCA Perimeter rule.

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

Given that LCY is so much more convenient to millions of people, there has to be a substantial difference in fares, or LCY would be overloaded While LCY does not have a formal perimeter rule, it effectively has one because of the length of the runway.

CPHFF wrote:

Maybe REKKOF will consider developing a F50 neo?

....and maybe we get our 20 million back

PacoMartin wrote:

dtremit wrote:

I think you're overestimating the price differences. Certainly you are for DCA vs IAD/BWI -- flights out of DCA are often very inexpensive, and several carriers run large portfolios of leisure flights from DCA.

Also, if you're comparing base fares for LCY, they can be misleading. The base fare on leisure flights ex-LON is so low that it can really amplify what are ultimately fairly insignificant differences. Looking at your LCY-AGP example -- looking at some random dates in May, it's true that the base BA fare LCY-AGP is £159 vs £79 on FR STN-AGP. But most of those leisure travelers will want to check luggage, at least; if you compare a fare that includes baggage and seat selection, BA actually ends up cheaper on the same flights (£188 vs £221).

Even if you did compare that difference in base fares -- £80pp (actually more like £65 when you factor in the higher cost of getting to STN) isn't that big a difference in the context of a week's holiday budget.

DCA Perimeter Rule: The Perimeter Rule is a federal regulation established in 1966 when jet aircraft began operating at Reagan National. The initial Perimeter Rule limited non-stop service to/from Reagan National to 650 statute miles, with some exceptions for previously existing service. By the mid-1980s, Congress had expanded Reagan National non-stop service to 1,250 statute miles (49 U.S. Code § 49109). Ultimately, Reagan National serves primarily as a "short-haul" airport while Washington Dulles International Airport serves as the region's "long-haul" growth airport.

DCA to DFW is 1,192 miles (Dallas is inside the perimeter)
DCA to IAH is 1,208 miles (Houston is inside the perimeter)
DCA to AUS is 1,315 miles (Austin is outside the perimeter)

In 2017 DCA had 4.4% more passengers than IAD, and in 2018 DCA had -2.2% fewer passengers than IAD. So for practical purposes they are roughly the same size. This similarity is in spite of the DCA Perimeter rule.

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

Given that LCY is so much more convenient to millions of people, there has to be a substantial difference in fares, or LCY would be overloaded While LCY does not have a formal perimeter rule, it effectively has one because of the length of the runway.

I'm not sure why you're talking about the perimeter rule, or discussing the Texas destinations. It does nothing to refute the point that there are tons of leisure flights to DCA. All of Florida is within the perimeter, and that's by far the biggest demand center for leisure flights on the US east coast. Heck, I'm a little confused overall as the bulk of your post seems to argue directly against your point at the end and your previous assertion that DCA and LCY are comparable in any reasonable way.

DCA's primarily limitation is runway capacity, and additional ones are runway length, gate space, and the somewhat congested ramp area. But it's still an operational cakewalk compared to LCY. Yeah, you can't fit a 777 there, but the place takes 234-seat 757-300s and launches them to SFO unrestricted every day. And the runway is hardly the only limitation at LCY. To give an anecdotal example: a couple weeks back I landed on an E190 from EDI. The pilot missed the stop point when pulling into the ramp, which required a nearly 180 degree turn. At that point we needed to exit the ramp area, back-taxi on the active runway and try the whole thing again. And this was to squeeze a regional jet in like a sardine in a can among several of its siblings.

It doesn't really matter where those flights are going to overall passenger count. Yes, it would be a marginal bump in passengers if there were more beyond-perimeter flights (which tend to be on larger aircraft), but there are already 20 beyond-perimeter flights and few of them operate on anything larger than 738s. Switching out an A320 turn to ORD for one going to DEN, SFO, LAX, or wherever makes no difference in the DCA passenger count. So yeah, if you took away the perimeter rule you'd get a few of the SFO turns (for example) moving from IAD to DCA, but every flight added would mean another mainline flight to somewhere else would be dropped, so the numbers wouldn't increase much. It's somewhat telling that even at IAD, 6 of the top 10 domestic destinations are within the DCA perimeter distance, and every one that isn't already has service from DCA in the beyond-perimeter slot portfolio.

well, water could be a problem so let's not say it's got to do nothing with the water. LCY is business-centred, it'll obviously only serve flights that are being operated by C Series, Embraer. LHR (and maybe LGW) seems to be the only airport that will get expanded as it has good links within the city. It's only a 15min ride from Paddington to Heathrow. However, Heathrow might not even get an expansion if the recent elections result in a win for Labour. Labour has reiterated many times that Heathrow will not get their 3rd runway if they take over parliament

ethernal wrote:

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.