Grumble Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I think that IF they're going to extend, they should do it properly now and plan for the future - main runway at least 2km long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Flynn Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 Turbo props have seen a resurgence compared to jets recently. I do not know if an even longer runway has been considered as an option but I don't think so as Mr Pain says there are no plans to bring Easyjet, Ryanair to the IOM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 VLJ are the way to go.... but surely what we need can already be done, all it needs is a bit of rubble tipping:-# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wfm_kansai_closeup.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansai_International_Airport or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Int...Airport#History Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 With reference to the need for aircraft on the London routes being a prime reason for the need to spend the money, the only really viable businessmans route to be fully exploited would be London City. The restriction on aircraft usage would be made by that airport and not by the Isle of Man, there is no way anyone is going into Heathrow from here, that privelege was 'sold' a long time ago !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted October 13, 2006 Share Posted October 13, 2006 I think that IF they're going to extend, they should do it properly now and plan for the future - main runway at least 2km long. Why don't they extend the other runway - towards Scarlet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Went to the airport yesterday to buy the CD of the planning application. It cost £10 and I was asked to provide personal details before I was given it ? Seems a bit odd, I don't think your average terrorist would be interested in something which only exists on paper ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted October 24, 2006 Share Posted October 24, 2006 Maybe they'll put you on a mailing list. Or send you a Christmas card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuna Sandwich Posted October 25, 2006 Share Posted October 25, 2006 I still think the whole thing is a waste of time and money. Jet flights are so few and far between that if they stopped them I don't see it as a big loss. Turbo props are more environmentally friendly anyway. The old ATP planes that Manx Airlines used to use held 80 passengers, and were often used on the London route. If it really comes down to the BA monday morning and friday evening Gatwick flights, is it not really BA's problem? As for actually shortening the runway, what a load of rubbish. The MINIMUM requirements changing does not mean you have to shorten the runway (chop it up and put down grass seed!?). That would be stupid as it would be a safety issue in it's own right. As has been said above, it sounds like a "Done Deal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempus Fugit Posted October 26, 2006 Share Posted October 26, 2006 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 why not save money and cut out the cr4p and go straight to the end game I can't see why it cannot be just stood up on pillars in the sea to minimise tidal and ecological effects, the footpath could even go under it too. Also have traffic lights at the other end for the twice a week flights which need the extra length, just move the horses to another field !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triple7 Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 Just for info the Manx ATPs held 68 passengers and yes they used to go the LHR but only when the 146 was sick or on a maintenance input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted October 27, 2006 Share Posted October 27, 2006 I have been quite interested to find out why all this public money needs to be spent on something which whilst possibly desirable is not strictly necessary. On this and other forums it seems most of the aviation professionals are not too bothered whether it happens or not as the current carriers can operate within the lengths we have.All the pressure appears to be management or political ?. I do think there is a hidden agenda here as their quoted regulations and desriability study do not add up in a cost benefit analysis. I read somewhere that the low cost carriers require 80,000 pax per year on any route to make it viable, the danger here is not more flights for the IOM but considerably less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted October 29, 2006 Share Posted October 29, 2006 Reading this topic it is interesting to see how addicted we all are to air travel and how there is no other conceivable form of transport? The environmental damage of the RESA will be huge with silt drifting all over Langness around Derbyhaven & Santon Gorge. Rock is being imported from Norway introducing non-indigenous life to our seas and 100,000's of tonnes of sand will be DREDGED up from Morecambe Bay creating envirnmental damage in 2 other countries. And commercial pilots here have been heard to say it is for bigger planes, despite what PP says, as other airports like Jersey, Southport aren't complying with the EU regs. Today the UK gov't announced taxation will be put on air flights because of the dangers from Climate Change ie the future of the human race! Air travel is THE fastest growing contributor to CC with the huge amounts of CO2 produced from planes throughout the world. It might be quicker & more convenient and sometimes cheaper but in the long run it'll cost the Earth! So should we spending £35 million on such a project and lets face it this type of plan will hugely overspend as there are so many variables like weather, storms etc to delay the project, from Climate Change perhaps?......what irony! Keep the runway as it is because this is just another scheme like 'Iris' if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripoff Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Having read with interest some of the previous comments, can I perhaps give the view from an aviation professional. I can assure you that the extension to the runway is purely on the grounds of safety and retaining the current runway as a useable runway. This has not been brought about by a European ruling but as a result of changes to the requirements of ICAO - the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Without going into two much detail I think people need to realise that a runway has literally two sets of dimensions - the physical length of the runway, in this case 1754m, and the 'Declared Distances' of the runway, that take into account all sorts of variables like obstacles on the final approach and also the available overun area. To give an example, at Ronaldsway although the physical length of the runway is 1754m, the actual distance that aircrew are allowed to use for the calculations for landing in an easterly direction is 1463m. When you read for the need to shorten the present runway if the extension does not go ahead, it is a shortening of the 'Declared' distances that are being referred to, not actually digging up bits of concrete. The reduction of these 'Declared' distances would have an operational impact on the present operators. A runway must include a RESA or runway end safety area and it is this criteria that has been amended. Therefore to include the new dimensions in the present physical runway length would result in a reduction in the 'Declared' or useable length of the runway. Hence the need for a physical extension. Even without the new requirements for RESA, an extension to this would be justified on pure safety grounds if you look closely at the sort of terrain an aircraft overunning would encounter - a few metres of ground followed by a metal gantry and rocks and sea. Any aircraft ending up in that situation would suffer catastrophic damage with the resultant casualties that would follow. I hope that the foregoing has explained the need for this extension and the fact that it has nothing to do with trying to entice easyjet to come here!! and before you ask, NO, I do not work for the Airport! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karellen Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 how there is no other conceivable form of transport? Living on an island there are 2 means of transport - sailing (not good in the winter, not good if you want to get anywhere quickly) or flying. And commercial pilots here have been heard to say it is for bigger planes, despite what PP says, as other airports like Jersey, Southport aren't complying with the EU regs. Southport? Today the UK gov't announced taxation will be put on air flights More taxation for the long suffering traveller - and where will this new windfall revenue stream be spent? It might be quicker & more convenient and sometimes cheaper but in the long run it'll cost the Earth! In the long run we are all dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dent Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Ripoff, as I understand it the ammended RESA exstension is not yet compusory and I believe ICAO are still considering exemptions for smaller airports? If this is true it may be desirable but not an essential project? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.