ripoff Posted October 30, 2006 Share Posted October 30, 2006 Dent You are probably right in that it is not yet compulsory but it is certainly 'best practice' In these days of litigation, if you don't follow best practice you leave yourself open to all sorts of claims so I can understand the Airport/Government not wanting to fall into that one. As far as exemptions are concerned, have to admit that is a new one on me. I suppose the bottom line is that as a Government Aerodrome, licensed by the DOT, they dont technically have to comply with anything. I understand however that they have always followed the requirements of document CAP 168 'Licensing of Aerodromes' issued by the UK CAA. Ronaldsway is actually notified in the 'UK Air Pilot' (the flying bible) as an International Aerodrome so I would suspect that we would not be exempt from such a requirement. The requirements for International Aerodromes are a lot more stringent than for smaller airfields. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 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. As a mass form of transport goes that doesn't contribute as much CO2 as flying, boat travel is the better option and how do we know that Climate Change won't make the winds so bad that planes will not be able to fly? 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? The 'windfall' tax should be spent on developing greener forms of transport. 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! Yes but there's no need to rush it is there? Watch the news every day as CC becomes higher & higher on the agenda - air travel is proven to be the fastest growing contributor to CO2 emissions it has to be cut back, not encouraged to increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Not too sure where this obsession with 737 aircraft comes from ?. Firstly, the particular aircraft in question is too big in terms of seat availability for the Isle of Man's needs. You would never fill one even on peak Friday / Sunday flights. Secondly, we have been comparing the Isle of Man to Jersey. Not too sure what the population is down there, but suspect it is many times that of our own Island. The runway extension is simply to comply with safety regulations. Do you remember the crowds on the prom the first time the seacat came into Douglas ?. Well I wouldn't book your deck chair at Derby Haven just yet, if you expect to witness the first scheduled flight being operated by a 737. Appart from the above, no airline has even promised to operate a jet service in any shape of form once BA have gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 Secondly, we have been comparing the Isle of Man to Jersey. Not too sure what the population is down there, but suspect it is many times that of our own Island. Isle of Man Population: 75,049 (July 2005 est.) By the end of 2005 Jersey's population had increased to 88,200. http://www.gov.je/Statistics/Population/ Yep, it's about 1.175x our population. Many times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 whilst we are doing comparisons.... http://www.gov.je/EconomicDevelopment/Airport/ "Jersey Airport provides facilities for passengers travelling directly to and from 33 UK airports and 18 international destinations. The Airport controls 80,000 annual aircraft movements and nearly 1.5 million passengers. This involves handling 15 airlines operating in and out of Jersey..." http://www.iom-airport.com/lib/docs/airpor...nov2006ver2.pdf shows the moving annual total to be around 800,000 pax. Quite a difference..... iom has UK 19 routes.....jersey has 33 iom has 75,000 population v jersey 88,200 (ratio 1.175) iom has 800,000 pax comapred to 1.5m (ratio 1.875) so theoretical vaules......seems to me that there is a bit of room in the market for more flights... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 ...seems to me that there is a bit of room in the market for more flights... Correct. And, of course, there's always room for more flights of fancy on the Forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 I think all this talk of 737's shows that people are confused. My understanding is that the extension approved by Tynwald is to comply with new EU rules on "run off" - they looked at doing a big extension to take in 737's etc but decided to fund the bare minimum needed on the grounds of cost. So all this talk of big jets in is silly. The extension as proposed will not really bring in much extra capacity at all and will be built so that the airport complies with the new rules. It might have made sense to go the whole hog and properly extend capacity at the same time, but from what i understand this is not what has been approved by Tynwald. It would have been nice if they had made that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted December 17, 2006 Share Posted December 17, 2006 there are two extensions up for discussion 1) departure lounge extension 2) RESA (Runway End Safety Area) i personally dont give a toss what type of plane i travel in. but what i do care about is the price i am charged, and the under utilisation of the airport here when compared to the one in jersey (which incidentally has a low cost carrier) the planning application for the RESA also incorporates a runway extension. the planning aplpication states : "It is therefore proposed to not only build a circa 200 metre promontory out to sea, which will resolve the RESA problem, but also to extend the current runway surface onto the new promontory, in order to gain a useful increase in runway length. This modest increase in length will help to ensure that future regional aircraft types can be accepted without payload restrictions." www.gov.im/lib/docs/airport/pr31resaplanningapplicationsub1.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripoff Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 lfc84 Think your a bit late discussing the Departure Lounge extension...last time I travelled through Ronaldsway it was nearly finished! As regards the RESA, I think what they are planning makes sense. A RESA only has to be a prepared surface that will take the weight of an aircraft. If you are going to build out to sea in order to make 'a prepared surface' then you may as well tarmac it and make it useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lfc84 Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 lfc84 Think your a bit late discussing the Departure Lounge extension...last time I travelled through Ronaldsway it was nearly finished! I was last there on Dec 8th and it wasnt finished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxchatterbox Posted December 18, 2006 Share Posted December 18, 2006 why don't they use buses to bring people in from the aircraft particularly when its raining...If I was a first time visitor i wouldn't be impressed at having to walk along some twisty path to come in through a side door after getting a drenching... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhumsaa Posted December 19, 2006 Share Posted December 19, 2006 don't be so ridiculous if I was a visitor I'd be annoyed at having to be packed onto a bus waiting 5 minutes to fill it when the plane is about 30 seconds walk away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.