Norwegian Air Discussion

JCX BXC

bkehoe wrote: »

It's frequently discussed on this forum about the A320 tech stops from ACE, usually in FAO. I can assure you that most aircraft are takeoff weight limited from ACE most days; A320, 737, etc. Theres way more going on with takeoff performance than just runway length. I think I've only been there once when I could take off at MTOW and that was due to a significant headwind component.

Often the older Jet2 737 Classics have the same issue and sometimes request runway 21 for departure even if its not the active runway as they're unable to use 03 with the conditions on the day. They often have to wait a significant time for ATC to accommodate this request but some days the tailwind on 21 is outside limits so then they have to tech stop too.

Can I ask what the exact issue is with 03 in ACE?

bkehoe

JCX BXC wrote: »

Can I ask what the exact issue is with 03 in ACE?

Obstacles in the climbout. That is the hills you've mentioned in your previous post.:) With calm wind and a warm day at ACE the 737-800 can only lift about 71 tonnes (its MTOW is up to 79 tonnes) so quite limiting especially as RW21 in the same conditions isn't limited by takeoff performance!

1123heavy

Captain_Crash wrote: »

Doubtful any tech's have been due to this. Its an 7800ft runway, nearly as long as DUB and the terrain although high in the area, doesn't cause any performance penalties for a flight of such length.

The A320 has the legs to travel 3500nmi, ACE-DUB is only 1500nmi.

There have sometimes been last minute stop overs on some of the Spanish routes to Belfast.

Irish Steve

I've not looked at the departure procedures for ACE, the likely issue is that there has to be an "escape" route away from high ground that can be used in the event of an engine failure, and with the modern twin engine aircraft, while they must be able to climb clear of ground after an engine failure, their ability to do so if heavy, or the temperatures are high can mean that they are restricted in the weight they can carry if they have to be able to maintain a specific climb rate to clear high ground. The calculations are complex, it's not the sort of thing you do on the back of a cigarette packet at the last minute, it's the sort of thing that flight operations work out for their regular destinations and provide to the crews as part of the trip kit. if the flight is very full, which tends to be the case at peak periods, the down side of that is a limit on the fuel that can be carried, hence the tech stop for fuel on the way, which is a better option that bouncing passengers or leaving luggage behind.

Bsal

The Aer Lingus A320's only have a MTOW of 73500kg which is tight if they are close to the max zero fuel weight. The A320 comes in various weight options with 77000kg MTOW being the most popular choice for the likes of Easyjet. The extra few tons really does make a difference on the longer routes like the Canaries.

de biz

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

We carry cash float if we go to Africa or South America!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Irish Steve

Long time ago now, not sure if they still offer the service, Diners Club did a card that was tied to the aircraft registration, the name on the card was the aircraft registration, and as it wasn't valid for purchases in places like restaurants or the like it could be left in the aircraft with the rest of the trip documentation, and being Diners, there was no credit limit to worry about. It was ideal for refuelling, the service providers were all geared up for it, and it also came in handy if there were any tech issues away from base, and for things like handling and landing fees.

Had to be paid in full at the end of the month though, so you had to make sure that the funds were in the bank account, as they took the payment by direct debit automatically.

goingnowhere

Bsal wrote: »

The Aer Lingus A320's only have a MTOW of 73500kg which is tight if they are close to the max zero fuel weight. The A320 comes in various weight options with 77000kg MTOW being the most popular choice for the likes of Easyjet. The extra few tons really does make a difference on the longer routes like the Canaries.

Isn't there a significant difference in IAA/ATC charges if you declare MTOW more than 75,000 kg?

drdeadlift

I was working a flight from mia to dub(charter) Our mechanic paid for over 60tons of juice with his personnel cc...should have asked what his limit was..all he asked the captain was for a fax to assure he gets repaid by the company.

bkehoe

goingnowhere wrote: »

Isn't there a significant difference in IAA/ATC charges if you declare MTOW more than 75,000 kg?

Not sure exactly about 75 tonnes but from what I remember once sat in a NATs presentation the en-route charges are based on the great circle distance between entry and exit points from a country FIR (essentially its airspace) and the square route of the aircrafts MTOW, multiplied by a certain amount that each country sets, per 100km.

The following link shows the factor each country applies. Ireland is cheap, Switzerland expensive as you can see;
https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/content/documents/route-charges/unit-rates-and-tariffs/ur-2017-07.txt

Bsal

goingnowhere wrote: »

Isn't there a significant difference in IAA/ATC charges if you declare MTOW more than 75,000 kg?

Good point I forgot airlines did that with weights to save money, if anyone has access to Aer Lingus' LIDO flightplans it would be interesting to see what MTOW they have listed on the weight section of the flightplans on the Canaries routes.

knockon

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes. Speaking from the 90's I was on many an aircraft with the "Shell" Credit Card in a translucent folder on the inside of the cockpit door.

737max

Are those 737 planes flying from the British Isles to East Coast US doing any other routes in the same 24 hour period e.g. Cork - US and then Cork to somewhere that might fill the plane with paying customers for 4 hours on a return trip like London or Paris?

LXFlyer

At least one of the Edinburgh aircraft does a rotation to/from Oslo.

Apart from that they sit in Cork, Shannon, Belfast and Edinburgh until their next flight westbound.

JCX BXC

737max wrote: »

Are those 737 planes flying from the British Isles to East Coast US doing any other routes in the same 24 hour period e.g. Cork - US and then Cork to somewhere that might fill the plane with paying customers for 4 hours on a return trip like London or Paris?

From Ireland no, nor do I see any plans for that in the foreseeable future.

Tbh I don't see any scope for anywhere much further then northern France or the UK.

737max

It would be a constant source of annoyance for an LCC like Ryanair or Wizz or EasyJet to see their plane sitting on the tarmac for so long each day.

JCX BXC

737max wrote: »

It would be a constant source of annoyance for an LCC like Ryanair or Wizz or EasyJet to see their plane sitting on the tarmac for so long each day.

Would it? You say this, having worked in the upper levels for each of them?

Ryanair seem perfectly happy to operate no flights with some aircraft until up to 9am in the morning, and none on some aircraft from 10pm at night, and have absolutely no issue parking up aircraft between August and May every year.

goingnowhere

Wasn't the whole Cork thing itself just a glorified tech stop. Barcelona - Cork - US was the original plan?

That addresses the utilization issue.

highlydebased

JCX BXC wrote:

From Ireland no, nor do I see any plans for that in the foreseeable future.

I've heard otherwise.

JCX BXC

737max wrote: »

Post deleted by original poster, so edit removed

You realise Ryanair have 96% occupancy because they fly them when they fill them, not the other way around. I don't understand how you can make a claim about Ryanair being annoyed with that when you don't know much about ryanairs scheduling whatsoever.

Also, you seem to think that this narrowbody service will have a massive transformation of US routes, I don't agree because range restricts the number of potential routes that can be operated significant.

In my opinion it'll always be a niche market until you have a medium capacity, long range aircraft. Of course the market changes rapidly, so who knows what'll happen. Imagine a 737 with the range for DUB-LAX though?

737max

paying the lease on a narrowbody flying across the Atlantic during times of the day when it could be transporting 5 or 6 times as many people within Europe is a clear-cut example of opportunity cost until such time as the operator can show that they are making more money flying across the Atlantic than using it intra-Europe.

Irish Steve

To change the view of the discussion, the issues between short haul and long haul are more complex than a simple case of numbers paying for a flight.

A lot of the ongoing costs of operating modern jets are not just based on hours flown, they are also based on the number of cycles the airframe accumulates, so an aircraft that spends 7 hours in the air on each flight will have a better residual value after a given number of years than the same airframe with lower total hours but 4 or 5 times the number of cycles on it, and during the life of the aircraft the maintenance costs on a high cycle airframe will be significantly more. Even simple stuff, an aircraft landing twice a day will use way fewer tyres and sets of brake linings than an identical aircraft that's landing 6 times a day, and overhaul costs on things like landing gear are significant.

Then, the cost of operating the aircraft are very different, the fuel burn at cruising altitude is way lower than the fuel burn operating at lower levels, or during take off and climb to height.

The next factor, and it's hugely significant, is the cost of landing and passenger handling, I've just looked at the Dublin fees, and for something like a 70 Tonne MTOW 737-800, if you are not getting a rebate, the cost of landing, passenger handling and related charges will rapidly go over €3000 at Terminal 2 during the summer months, and there's nothing in that figure for the charges imposed on top of the airport fees for the handling agents charges for things like baggage handling, push back fees, toilet and water servicing, cleaning and (less often these days) in flight catering services.

So, and I've only done a quick look, the long thin skinny routes may not be as uneconomic as first appears when looking at the income from 6 or 8 flights compared to 2 flights, even when the costs of crew accommodation at the outstation are added into the long haul costings.

737max

Irish Steve wrote: »

To change the view of the discussion, the issues between short haul and long haul are more complex than a simple case of numbers paying for a flight..

Still an operator would love to be getting a plane based in London or Paris or on the other side in the US squeezing in another near fully booked flight daily going through Cork or Dublin or Shannon on either side of the trans-Atlantic trip if it were at all possible.
Lufthansa appear happy enough to stop in Shannon on their way to America on a Saturday.

Fattes

JCX BXC wrote: »

Would it? You say this, having worked in the upper levels for each of them?

Ryanair seem perfectly happy to operate no flights with some aircraft until up to 9am in the morning, and none on some aircraft from 10pm at night, and have absolutely no issue parking up aircraft between August and May every year.

Completely and utterly wrong, Ryanair operate all their aircraft on 4-5 flight bases a day during peak summer months, April - Oct that includes their sole 737-700 which is taken off training for passanger use.

Aircraft that are not flying in summer months are AOG or gone tech and Ryanair will do everything they can to get it back in service asap.

For winter months obviously the demand is lower so heavy maintenance is carried out and more aircraft are parked up. Basic supply and demand really, and the cost of grounding them in winter is worth it to have then available, for peak months and rotate aircraft through scheduled heavy maintenance.

JCX BXC

737max wrote: »

Still an operator would love to be getting a plane based in London or Paris or on the other side in the US squeezing in another near fully booked flight daily going through Cork or Dublin or Shannon on either side of the trans-Atlantic trip if it were at all possible.
Lufthansa appear happy enough to stop in Shannon on their way to America on a Saturday.

Why don't they? I don't see the issue with Norwegian going from STN-ORK-PVD.

Also, can I ask what you mean by Lufthansa? The Lufthansa service is only FRA-SNN-FRA and operated by an A319.

JCX BXC

Fattes wrote: »

Completely and utterly wrong, Ryanair operate all their aircraft on 4-5 flight bases a day during peak summer months, April - Oct that includes their sole 737-700 which is taken off training for passanger use.

Aircraft that are not flying in summer months are AOG or gone tech and Ryanair will do everything they can to get it back in service asap.

For winter months obviously the demand is lower so heavy maintenance is carried out and more aircraft are parked up. Basic supply and demand really, and the cost of grounding them in winter is worth it to have then available, for peak months and rotate aircraft through scheduled heavy maintenance.

Where does the capacity come from to operate many extra flights between holiday routes and the UK/Ireland in June/July, often August and sometimes May/September. Surely they can't get capacity out of thin air?

737max

JCX BXC wrote: »

Also, can I ask what you mean by Lufthansa? The Lufthansa service is only FRA-SNN-FRA and operated by an A319.

You are correct. I misremember and I am wrong on that point and have the humility to admit it.

Irish Steve

JCX BXC wrote: »

Imagine a 737 with the range for DUB-LAX though?

You don't need to imagine it, they are being built very soon, albeit not by Boeing.

Have a look at this site,

http://www.aircraft.airbus.com/aircraftfamilies/passengeraircraft/a320family/a321neo/

The A321LR can make over 60% of the USA non stop, almost all of Canada, and way beyond the Middle East, so the concept of being able to use such aircraft will massively reduce the dependence on places like Heathrow (and maybe even Dublin) as hubs to transfer from long haul to commuter size aircraft, though there will be places that won't be able to take a fully loaded 321LR, which is where things like the ATR services will fill the gap.

2 x 321's a day will also be a lot more attractive to business users than one 330, depending on the scheduling.

Having done it on a good few occasions, there is no pleasure in having to go through somewhere like Atlanta or JFK, Heathrow or Istanbul, the time and hassles involved in the process for the passenger, and the costs for the airlines make long skinny routes very attractive if they go to places and at frequencies that appeal to people, and there are huge advantages in not being dependent on connections.

JCX BXC

The A321LR is in essence a 757 replacement, however I'm not sure it has the range for DUB-LAX. Nothing we've not seen before really, slightly better range but a slightly lower payload.