Tempus Fugit Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 or move to a nice big flat place called J u r b y Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted September 18, 2006 Share Posted September 18, 2006 The dual ended extension to Sunburgh airport on Shetland opened a couple of weeks ago - both extensions cross public roads - during landing /takeoffs there are both flashing red lights and a security barrier closed across the road on each side of the runway - needs two (or more) staff to operate without causing excessive delays. Also whilst on Shetland found I had inadvertently booking a cottage in the flightpath of Scatsta airport in the north mainland near Sullom Voe - that too is built close to a public road which is protected by flashing lights - it is used as a transit airport for the oil rigs - BA146's fly from Aberdeen which we found to cause little noise problem though I would hate to be under a 737 'pig' which is considerably noiser on takeoff/landings - the helicopters transferring staff to the rigs were much noisier that the 146's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 I think either: Lights on the Castletown Road (cheapest, easiest option). However, no consultant will be able to make a killing out of it so that will not happen. A pile of houses and half of poulsum park would need flattening and the steam railway rerouted Compulsary purchase of the field at the end of the other runway. But, then you have the green brigade, say no more. which field? at the other end of the main runway is the sea. If you mean the short runway, you cant go far enough that way because of the surrounding hills on the approach. The other alternative is an underpass on the castletown road allowing the runway to go over the top. see above At the end of the day the problem is run off in the event of an emergency. It is nothing to do with bringing in bigger planes. If you look at the plans at the airport for the extention into the sea it is actually quite short. The longer of the two runways is stunted so they don't have to have lights on the castletown road. In addition, across the castletown road is already a cleared flight path with no houses. The actual landing point could be moved to by the road, still within the current airport boundaries giving them the extention they need at minimal cost. Hills on the approach to the short runway? Have you ever seen Rio de Janiero Airport? Take off and hang a quick left before you hit the mountain. There are plenty of other airports like that too. The drawings and measurements are at the airport for anyone to see (unless they have now been moved back to Douglas). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 They said this morning on 3fm that history is being made today as for the first time a 737 is landing here to do a direct flight. Weren't there people earlier on this thread saying they've flown in on one here in the past, and other people saying they're too big to land here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 They said this morning on 3fm that history is being made today as for the first time a 737 is landing here to do a direct flight. Weren't there people earlier on this thread saying they've flown in on one here in the past, and other people saying they're too big to land here? I have landed on a 140 (or so) seat 737 British Airways plane a few years ago. I cannot remember the exact circumstances but the I think we came from Gatwick. The plane had no trouble landing, however it was only half full. One interesting thing was that the broken down plane's Manx crew were on as passengers as they had no experience of the plane so they all sat at the back and had the rest of the day off. I also have been on a Britannia airlines (I think) plane, many years ago that flew to Jersey via Blackpool. This must have been about 17 years ago. I cannot remember the make/model/seats, but it had 3 engines on the tail and made the news as being unusually large for the Island. As I said earlier, there is no real problem landing or taking off of that size of plane here, but new regulations say that extra space is needed just incase they have to abort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumble Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Bigger aeroplanes CAN use Ronaldsway, but are seriously compromised in the amount of fuel and passengers carried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spanna Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 They said this morning on 3fm that history is being made today as for the first time a 737 is landing here to do a direct flight. Weren't there people earlier on this thread saying they've flown in on one here in the past, and other people saying they're too big to land here? do 3fm write their own news? wtf. 737,757, Airbus A320, A319, all big jets that have landed here doing direct flights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cret Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Would rather sound that way judging from several aviation fans I spoke to today who all claimed to have been in on a 737 at some point or other! I wasn't dreaming. Honest! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 At the risk of going over old ground can anyone elighten me as to what the much vaunted report said about the necessity of the runway extension. I have read what Phil Payne said about 200 seater aircraft capable of 2000nm for the Med, but wonder why the jump into another huge chunk of capital expenditure, given that the current crop of airlines are nowhere near capacity and most are surviving 'just'. The economics of operating large aircraft to and from the Island do not seem to add up given the current situation !, hope this is not going to develop into another expensive not required item. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 http://www.iom-airport.com/news/viewnews.g...yplanningap.xmlpr31resaplanningapplicationsub1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Basically Philip Pain's position on behalf of the Airport Authority's is that when the new recommended standard of safety becomes mandatory, if we haven't by then lengthened the runway by 240 metres, we will have to shorten the present runway so that the runway end safety area complies with new international standards. At that stage only certain aircraft types could operate and so there would be less use of the IOM by air traffic. There is a window of opportunity whilst older aircraft are still in operation to remedy the situation.. He doesn't believe larger aircraft will come here. The arguments of alternatives to the present plan have apparently been investigated and rejected, including the building of a new airport at Jurby at the cost of £200 million. This present planning applicationis opposed by many of the local residents - because of drainage, flooding, noise and air pollution; the environmental lobby represented by Friends of the Earth - who speak of environmental vandalism to the marine life in the area; Manx National Heritage are concerned over Neolithic bronze age finds etc.; and the Society for the Preservatiion of the Manx Countryside & Environment who are concerned at the alteration to the Coastal footpath. Also the Manx Wildlife Trust are unhappy because of the risk to species of wildlife. It is anticipated the work will take 4 years to complete at a cost of £35 million in today's money. Aviation passenger levels rise by 4% each year so from 800,000 passengers p.a. today there will be if this pattern continues some 2.5 million passengers by 2030. Carbon dioxide emissions will rise in the Castletown locality by 22% so this increase will add to global warming and put some residents at risk of cardiac or respiratory problems. There was a small piece on "Lookaround" Border t.v. this evening when a local resident, Michael Savage; the author and diver, Maura Mitchell; Phillip Pain, the Airport Director; and me, on behalf of Friends of the Earth stated our respective positions. This story will run for some time and no doubt the planning application will go to Appeal but the final decision will be made by the Minister after all the planning stages are completed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 It is difficult to understand the economics of this, the current airlines are all operating at levels which are 'just' sustainable (for some). All of them are well below capacity. Having read this morning that Sleepwell are closing a hotel because of under occupancy for the winter, who exactly is going to fill the large aircraft the Gov seem keen on bringing here. The runway even at a restricted length is long enough to service the needs of the IOM and to keep operators using smaller aircraft at or near capacity. The large operators will not come here, there is insufficient traffic to make it economically viable and I cannot believe we are to spend another huge chunk of taxpayers money to service a few holiday flights ? The island does need biz jet infrastructure but that does not include as a matter of course a longer runway. I get the feeling this is a done deal and another project to be proud of, like most of the others !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I was told that the next generation of passenger planes will require less runway because they will be much lighter. However, it wasn't made clear whether this will be due to technological development or an anticipation that far fewer people will be travelling to the island! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Ryanair demand 2,000 metre runways. 1926 metres is the best we can do even with the new extension. Currently we have the 8th shortest runway in the British Isles. If the new extension goes ahead our runway will be the 13th shortest. A 4% increase in passengers p.a. is expected. 2.5. million by 2030. It looks like a done deal to me but there are no certainties in this world. Anyone can be critical or suggest modifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 13, 2006 Author Share Posted October 13, 2006 It is difficult to understand the economics of this, the current airlines are all operating at levels which are 'just' sustainable (for some). All of them are well below capacity. Having read this morning that Sleepwell are closing a hotel because of under occupancy for the winter, who exactly is going to fill the large aircraft the Gov seem keen on bringing here. The runway even at a restricted length is long enough to service the needs of the IOM and to keep operators using smaller aircraft at or near capacity. The large operators will not come here, there is insufficient traffic to make it economically viable and I cannot believe we are to spend another huge chunk of taxpayers money to service a few holiday flights ? The island does need biz jet infrastructure but that does not include as a matter of course a longer runway. I get the feeling this is a done deal and another project to be proud of, like most of the others !!! I thought the issue was if the runway isn't extended even the BAE146 will not be rated to land at full weight and hence will have load restrictions. It isn't full all the time, but Monday morning etc it is and that is the only time they really make money so to be restricted then would be a disaster. With the extension the 146 is fully rated as will be the smallest 737. The Island could take a decision to drop jet flights and only use turbopros - but is that a sensible course? These aircraft may be cheaper to operate, but there are strategic issues about the convenience of getting people to London. Hence the decision to invest in the new infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.