|
|
Post by dalten1 on May 28, 2018 23:41:30 GMT 1
getting back to things with wings and engines,wonder if Ethiopian will designate us as primary diversion field for their new manchester service this coming winter after hopefully getting handled well during their recent visits ? |
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on May 28, 2018 23:47:19 GMT 1
getting back to things with wings and engines,wonder if Ethiopian will designate us as primary diversion field for their new manchester service this coming winter after hopefully getting handled well during their recent visits ? Sorry. Not very good at this. Handling a prearranged charter flight with probably hand luggage only is a lot different to handling a sudden arrival which needs proper baggage handling equipment and a lot of probably disgruntled passengers. It is also unlikely we would see SAA for the same reason. After following events like this over 50 years, it is sad but true. |
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on May 29, 2018 0:09:48 GMT 1
Sorry. Not very good at this. Handling a prearranged charter flight with probably hand luggage only is a lot different to handling a sudden arrival which needs proper baggage handling equipment and a lot of probably disgruntled passengers. It is also unlikely we would see SAA for the same reason. After following events like this over 50 years, it is sad but true. The airport has all the equipment to handle any aircraft that take containerised baggage(off and on),granted the actual building and its baggage handling system would probably need an overhaul along with the off load belts,also some refresher training on the equipment that will be used.The hardest part is putting the
Hi-Lo up to the aircraft without putting a hole in it. 
|
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on May 29, 2018 7:46:36 GMT 1
I know we have the equipment but the airport's handling agents have a history of turning away awkward flights because they don't have appropriate staff or enough of them.
It is also a requirement at all airport's these days that they have a nominated handling agents ready.
I live near Gatwick and even now LPL is still considered a bit of a Mickey Mouse airport.
I worked at LPL when it was under threat of closure and handling only 250k pax.
I stand to be proved wrong.
This is all deviating off-topic, sorry.
|
|
|
|
Post by jetdragon on May 29, 2018 8:13:36 GMT 1
Think I might put a certain goalkeeper(sic) into the super villain category . Perhaps unfair to call him a goalkeeper I seem to recall one Mr. Grobbelaar was equally unreliable early in his Reds career but went on to be a pretty decent keeper. One thing is certain, the lad didn't do it on purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by cargoking on May 29, 2018 10:49:45 GMT 1
LHR and Brum will be the ET and JET diversion fields if they cant get into MAN. Although nothing is apprently set in stone yet. Its a shame as i think LPL would be good. But like others when i worked there the eqipment needs updatin1g and some of the GSE looks like it should be in a scrap yard. LPL has great potential but other people need to see this.
|
|
|
|
Post by evertongary on May 29, 2018 11:48:59 GMT 1
Out of interest, exactly what type of aircraft / flight is LPL able to handle? I know we had A340 / B787 in for Champions league, but for example could we take a full B787 for a long haul flight? Im thinking more on runway etc
|
|
|
|
Post by radiostationx on May 29, 2018 12:18:17 GMT 1
Out of interest, exactly what type of aircraft / flight is LPL able to handle? I know we had A340 / B787 in for Champions league, but for example could we take a full B787 for a long haul flight? Im thinking more on runway etc Newcastle has similar length RWYs and does EK36/UAE36 daily to Dubai on a B777-300ER. I think it would be a matter of weight loading capability on the taxiways and apron for a fully loaded 787-9, 773 or a346 etc. |
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on May 29, 2018 12:33:50 GMT 1
As regards weight loading on the taxiways I think the figure is high - reference Concorde visits in the past. Do the 787 and A350 have powerful engines which make Liverpool a possibility? Does long haul need defining - how far?
|
|
|
|
Post by radiostationx on May 29, 2018 13:02:55 GMT 1
Concorde mtw 185,000kg, 777-300er mtw 365,000kg (class:heavy).
The twin isle a321-LR will be a game changer for airports such as Liverpool.
Paris-JFK done and a few other long haul trials in testing over recent months.
|
|
|
|
Post by frlpl91 on May 29, 2018 13:20:46 GMT 1
Wonder who will he the first airline to offer longhaul out of Liverpool if they do ?
Norwegian maybe with a Jfk based Dreamliner ?
|
|
|
|
Post by radiostationx on May 29, 2018 13:36:03 GMT 1
Manufacturers are changing their product to suit a changing market. Norwegian,air Transat and aer lingus are already on the list for the A321LR but I imagine jet blue and easyJet and azul will be watching closely along with some flag carriers.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on May 29, 2018 13:50:44 GMT 1
Weight on apron and taxiways; isn't there something called LCG - Load Classification Group?
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on May 29, 2018 14:46:50 GMT 1
The very fact that Concorde had no problem with the part of the airport still in use is indicative of the fact that no passenger aircraft should have a problem with (what I think is) LCN - Load Classification Number. With few wheels, Concorde exerted what is known as the Stiletto Heel effect. Light, but transferred that weight through a very small area. The C-5A Galaxy, when it called had no problem with the old North airfield despite its far greater weight (even empty) due to the large number of wheels transferring that weight through to the tarmac or concrete.
The length of runway at 7,500ft is a factor in permitting larger aircraft to routinely depart for distant destinations. We have had wide bodied aircraft depart for Vancouver direct in conditions with a stiff breeze directly down the runway. However the likes of Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8, Douglas DC-10, L.1011 Tristar and Boeing 747 would normally have to make a fuel stop en route if looking to go transatlantic. The new generation of Boeing 787 and Airbus A.350 with far greater thrust to weight ratio could likely depart LJLA direct to USA routinely, however no-one yet has had the need to demonstrate that it indeed could be done whatever the wind.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on May 29, 2018 14:57:51 GMT 1
The very fact that Concorde had no problem with the part of the airport still in use is indicative of the fact that no passenger aircraft should have a problem with (what I think is) LCN - Load Classification Number. With few wheels, Concorde exerted what is known as the Stiletto Heel effect. Light, but transferred that weight through a very small area. The C-5A Galaxy, when it called had no problem with the old North airfield despite its far greater weight (even empty) due to the large number of wheels transferring that weight through to the tarmac or concrete. The length of runway at 7,500ft is a factor in permitting larger aircraft to routinely depart for distant destinations. We have had wide bodied aircraft depart for Vancouver direct in conditions with a stiff breeze directly down the runway. However the likes of Boeing 707, Douglas DC-8, Douglas DC-10, L.1011 Tristar and Boeing 747 would normally have to make a fuel stop en route if looking to go transatlantic. The new generation of Boeing 787 and Airbus A.350 with far greater thrust to weight ratio could likely depart LJLA direct to USA routinely, however no-one yet has had the need to demonstrate that it indeed could be done whatever the wind. I've just had a quick look at EGGP UK AIP pages and very little seems to have changed since 2013. The Runway has a PCN (Pavement classification number)of 77. There are some restrictions though, mainly due to the proximatey of the GA apron to Taxiway Alpha. there is also a building. Aircraft with more than a 150ft approx wingspan have to be guided onto 27 and have to have a wingman near said building. This needs sorting out. |
|
