Champions League Final, Kiev, 2018 - Part 2 (Fact)

[radiostationx]

May 29, 2018 14:29:52 GMT 1 ametyst said:

It is not based on mtw it is based on psi (pressure per square inch).

Correct but MTOW is everything with regards to the rwy/taxiway maintenance & upkeep portion of the landing fees.
A empty or full B773ER landing with those fantastic brakes can make a real mess of your asphalt I imagine.

With 4000nm + range,The 321-LR is a very attractive model for the low cost operators and smaller airports as most of them already operate A320/1 aircraft.
Lower MTOW = lower landing fees, no specialist eqpt reqd, no changes to airfield hardware.

www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2018/04/the-a321lr--goes-long--with-record-breaking-flight.html

[viscount]

The current runway and taxiways were rebuilt (not just a resurface) in 2006/2007, which would be when the current PCN (thanks 'Dalten1' for setting that one straight) was tested. The building that is adjacent to the taxiway houses the back-up generators. Boeing 747-400s have taxied past without issue. I suspect the requirement for a wingman is to ensure that measurement theory and fact are the same. The building is low and should be below wing-tip height. Until there have been a number of long-wing wide-bodies passing the generator building and GA access, then a wing-man observer is a very sensible precaution rather than a barrier to operation. In the early days of A.380 operation at Manchester there were great restrictions based on certain departure taxiway routes due to a combination of turning circle requirements and wing tip clearance with other traffic - all resolved with experience of actual operation.

[ronturner]

Wonder who will he the first airline to offer longhaul out of Liverpool if they do ?

Norwegian maybe with a Jfk based Dreamliner ?

How about Globespan?

There has to be a very compelling reason for flights LPL/USA. The last thing we want is another fiasco like the last one. I just googled what is available out of Manchester on a particular day and found three direct flights using code shares marketed by six airlines. Added to that an astonishing number of 1 stop options.

I am not saying never, but the reason has to be unique and sustainable. Perhaps thinking of inward passengers as the main driver. Liverpool as a destination rather than as a point of departure, might be a possibility.

[viscount]

Naughty, naughty, Ron!

Oddly both Flyglobespan and Norwegian both flew services from Liverpool Airport for one year, less a week; so neither have a great track record. Mind you Norwegian are still in business and Flyglobespan are not; while many were relieved to see Flyglobespan go, we were sorry when Norwegian departed.

[radiostationx]

RWY09 and 27 and taxiways=Asphalt PCN 77/F/C/W/T which is low strength subgrade for flexibles ..well I think so.
Main Apron=Concrete PCN 92/R/B/W/T which is Medium strength subgrade for rigids...again I think so.
Notes in the AIP mention up to b767 but that is for stands and gates.

There is a wiki about all this stuff


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavement_classification_number


Ron, you never know Jet Blue could step in with LJLA-LGA using one of their A321LRs

[vctr]

There would be zero chance of LPL-LGA, unless it was to operate Saturdays only of course....

[Deleted]

May 29, 2018 15:55:55 GMT 1 viscount said:

The current runway and taxiways were rebuilt (not just a resurface) in 2006/2007, which would be when the current PCN (thanks 'Dalten1' for setting that one straight) was tested. The building that is adjacent to the taxiway houses the back-up generators. Boeing 747-400s have taxied past without issue. I suspect the requirement for a wingman is to ensure that measurement theory and fact are the same. The building is low and should be below wing-tip height. Until there have been a number of long-wing wide-bodies passing the generator building and GA access, then a wing-man observer is a very sensible precaution rather than a barrier to operation. In the early days of A.380 operation at Manchester there were great restrictions based on certain departure taxiway routes due to a combination of turning circle requirements and wing tip clearance with other traffic - all resolved with experience of actual operation.

Indeed...and something which is easily forgotten in all this is the A380 always had to be led to the runway in use by an airport ops vehicle and at the time I worked there, (2011-12) the only gate which it was allowed on was gate 9 of Terminal 1. If there was another A380 arrival, it had to go onto the remote area, with all the problems of bussing the passengers and moving ground equipment out there. Additionally, sorting out the the Emirates pax from others who were departing from gates 8 and 10 could be a bit of a nightmare. And don't even mention Gate 32 - aka the cul-de-sac! As one who worked at MAN I can tell you that when it came to aircraft movements and other operational aspects, it was not without its problems.

[frlpl91]

Wasn’t flyglobespan a 757-200 to Jfk and it had to stop in knock for some reason

[cargoking]

May 29, 2018 17:22:58 GMT 1 garstonboy said:

May 29, 2018 15:55:55 GMT 1 viscount said:

The current runway and taxiways were rebuilt (not just a resurface) in 2006/2007, which would be when the current PCN (thanks 'Dalten1' for setting that one straight) was tested. The building that is adjacent to the taxiway houses the back-up generators. Boeing 747-400s have taxied past without issue. I suspect the requirement for a wingman is to ensure that measurement theory and fact are the same. The building is low and should be below wing-tip height. Until there have been a number of long-wing wide-bodies passing the generator building and GA access, then a wing-man observer is a very sensible precaution rather than a barrier to operation. In the early days of A.380 operation at Manchester there were great restrictions based on certain departure taxiway routes due to a combination of turning circle requirements and wing tip clearance with other traffic - all resolved with experience of actual operation.

Indeed...and something which is easily forgotten in all this is the A380 always had to be led to the runway in use by an airport ops vehicle and at the time I worked there, (2011-12) the only gate which it was allowed on was gate 9 of Terminal 1. If there was another A380 arrival, it had to go onto the remote area, with all the problems of bussing the passengers and moving ground equipment out there. Additionally, sorting out the the Emirates pax from others who were departing from gates 8 and 10 could be a bit of a nightmare. And don't even mention Gate 32 - aka the cul-de-sac! As one who worked at MAN I can tell you that when it came to aircraft movements and other operational aspects, it was not without its problems.

Dont forget Garstonboy that was only because gate 12 which is now the 380 stand wasnt built. Stand 18 is the culd- de-sac stand 32 is the old pier on the corner people think manchester can only handle 2 380's the origanl stands where stand 12 and 62/63 next to the wash stand. However there was a day about 2 maybe 3 years ago. When we had 6 A380s in. The thing with LPL is its needs a lot of work with handling agents and eqipment updating before it coukd handle bigger so called long haul flights. Hence why Manchester gets the bigger flights the infastructure is already there. Its a shame for LPL i would like to see some longhaul routes from there. Its not a bad little airport.