|
|
Post by optimum1878 on Jul 17, 2019 0:05:28 GMT 1
It should be noted that Everton also flew out of Manchester for their recent Africa friendly on an Air X A340-300. So both clubs have chosen to do this recently on long haul flights to as described I assume avoid potential fuel stops Why is it necessary for fuel stop(s) if they depart from L'pool and not the case if the flight is from Manchester ? Longer runway,means the aircraft can take on more fuel,so no need for fuel stop,simples. |
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Jul 17, 2019 6:34:37 GMT 1
That's fair enough, if disappointing. However no such limitation exists on landing back.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolman1 on Jul 17, 2019 8:51:53 GMT 1
Thanks for the explanation. Do I recall that a starter strip was amongst the proposals some years back? That would accommodate aircraft on longer non-stop trips. Whatever became of the starter strip proposal?
|
|
|
|
Post by davel on Jul 17, 2019 9:14:47 GMT 1
Length of runway at LPL means weight limited so can't take on enough fuel for some long haul flights if fully loaded. Starter strip has been under discussion but newer aircraft like A350 and B787 can go considerably further from LPL, is it worth it extending for a few charters? The existing runway is ample for our existing destinations. However freight charters could be affected as they normally use older equipment.
|
|
|
|
Post by ronturner on Jul 17, 2019 12:05:25 GMT 1
A good illustration of the capabilities of machine and runway was seen with the recent visit of the Corsair 747 which took fans to Madrid. With a relatively small uplift of fuel and presumably none or little hold luggage the weight would have been within the performance envelope for take off at Liverpool. The same machine going to say, New York would be quite a different story, unless of course the weather and upper winds were favourable in which case another dimension comes into play, as does the efficiency of the crew who can optimise the use of throttle "en route" to squeeze the best out of the aeroplane. This is one area where, in times past, a good flight engineer would pay back his salary times over. Apart from being a private pilot where we pay attention to this sort of thing on every flight, I am far from being an expert but I find all this a fascinating aspect of aviation.
|
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on Jul 17, 2019 16:35:49 GMT 1
Length of runway at LPL means weight limited so can't take on enough fuel for some long haul flights if fully loaded. Starter strip has been under discussion but newer aircraft like A350 and B787 can go considerably further from LPL, is it worth it extending for a few charters? The existing runway is ample for our existing destinations. However freight charters could be affected as they normally use older equipment. The A350/B787 are not comparable with B747/A380 types. They are more in the B767/777 league. As has been said, a runway extension is the only reasonable guarantee of regular use and the expense is massive. |
|
|
|
Post by onanotherplane on Jul 17, 2019 23:09:00 GMT 1
Regarding the restrictions on bigger aircraft using LJLA because of the runway length.
Although the cost would be huge,would it not be financially viable eventually for the airport if the runway were extended?
One of the comments on here was that the runway was adequate for the destinations served. But isn't this a 'catch 22' situation, in that they are only destinations like those because of the runway length. If this was increased then surely the number of destinations would increase, meaning ever increasing revenue for the airport.
|
|
|
|
Post by liverpoolman1 on Jul 17, 2019 23:48:02 GMT 1
Yes, it is a Catch 22 situation but also a chicken-and-egg situation. Do you build a runway extension first or wait until an airline asks for far distance airport capability?
I am indebted to everyone who has answered my original query and cleared things up in my mind. I also apologise for causing thread drift - lively though it has been.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluefox on Jul 18, 2019 0:06:27 GMT 1
Would a starter extension be cheaper than a runway extension ?
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Jul 18, 2019 8:45:49 GMT 1
A starter strip is narrower than a full width runway - being used for departures only. The landing threshold remaining where it is. The starter strip is not available for landings, so the take-off distance of runway is therefore greater than landing distance. This is fine at the 27 end, but an issue at 09 end due to the land falling away towards the river bank. Without any facts to back-up the next statement in general terms the prevailing westerly winds are usually stronger than the light easterlies on 09. It is in light winds that the extra runway length is most needed. Although when drawn onto 'master-plan' maps the starter-strip is added to the 27 end, to my mind it only makes sense at both ends - especially as the prevailing westerlies no longer seem so prevailing!
A full runway extension is quite feasible at the 27 end, extending both landing and take-off run fully. However, even though a reasonable extension would only take the runway well towards the Hale horse farm - the consequent RESA extension would also mean purchase of properties beyond current airport land, which would add further to the cost and time-scale of such a project.
While any project would be costed out over a considerable number of years, it would require the certainty of a great number of 'heavy' flights over that period to make any starter-strip or full extension a viable proposition - then the question of where you would put the terminal to handle multiple wide-body flights per week, plus parking, access etc. Even to the south of 09/27 land is limited, which is why the 'pie-in-sky' proposals of the late 1980s to extend out into the river were formulated, the one with parallel runways on a different alignment to the current one.
As for moving this 'thread drift', this discussion is appended onto a thread that on this section will shortly be slipping down the index page towards obscurity - it is unlikely that anything more will be added now to Tuesday's movements ie is not interrupting the thread topic. Might be worth it though, if only to find it again when the topic next 'pops up'!
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jul 18, 2019 9:41:21 GMT 1
Spot on with your interpretation of the starter strip/runway extension Brian,it was my thought aswell where do the airport park wide body aircraft if any of the plans came true,lots of money needed  |
|
|
|
Post by dalten1 on Jul 18, 2019 10:14:25 GMT 1
Spot on with your interpretation of the starter strip/runway extension Brian,it was my thought aswell where do the airport park wide body aircraft if any of the plans came true,lots of money needed With regard parking. The original apron was a quick fix. Who in their right mind would put hangars right up to the main taxiway, which then interfered,for a time with the CatII operations. The apron is now split in two. Multi-purpose stands,which can accommodate a wide-body or two narrow bodies would require a rejig of the present set-up. Not as much of a boarding problem as we don't have airbridges to move.As far as I know the GA apron is still not even part of the licensed aerodrome. The present uncertainty in the aviation world will preclude any major airside changes. They are concentrating on internal revenue generating alterations. More thread drift, Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by LPL on Jul 18, 2019 11:09:59 GMT 1
The apron stands are set up to accept large aircraft, not many granted, there is a officialdiagram that shows the aircraft types that each stand can take.
|
|
|
|
Post by viscount on Jul 18, 2019 12:46:48 GMT 1
The apron stands are set up to take the occasional wide body/freighter aircraft - isolated at the least used end farthest from the terminal, so in the process maximising the space for the regular day-in, day-out narrow aisle Airbus/Boeing traffic close to the terminal.
IF (and that is a big, very big if) an airline with long-haul routes was to move into Liverpool, and as a consequence the funds made available for starter strips and attendant taxiways - then those airlines are going to want direct terminal access for their passengers with airbridges etc. That in-turn is going to require more terminal building space and larger apron(s) to accommodate the routine traffic moved outwards by creating large stands in front of the terminal.
Without doubt the passenger through-put growth would be considerable - the 'knock-on' effects in terms of starter-strips/runway extension, terminal space, apron space and stand organisation, car parking, access roads, and on and on would be considerable too.
What I am saying, is that lengthening the take-off runway available will only come if there is airline demand, and if there is that airline demand then huge other changes will need to happen too. The impact of growing just as much with narrow bodied jets would be considerably less in terms of apron and additional terminal space. A single narrow-body stand adjacent to the terminal will be used some eight-ten times a day, a wide-body stand likely only twice. A conundrum that Manchester Airport are facing with the current need to install many more small gates as the reconfigured 'best' apron stands are occupied for longer by fewer wide body flights.
It is not as simple as just 'why not extend the runway so LFC can fly out direct to the Far East once each year'.
|
|
|
|
Post by vanguard on Jul 18, 2019 15:54:07 GMT 1
Spot on with your interpretation of the starter strip/runway extension Brian,it was my thought aswell where do the airport park wide body aircraft if any of the plans came true,lots of money needed With regard parking. The original apron was a quick fix. Who in their right mind would put hangars right up to the main taxiway, which then interfered,for a time with the CatII operations. The apron is now split in two. Multi-purpose stands,which can accommodate a wide-body or two narrow bodies would require a rejig of the present set-up. Not as much of a boarding problem as we don't have airbridges to move.As far as I know the GA apron is still not even part of the licensed aerodrome. The present uncertainty in the aviation world will preclude any major airside changes. They are concentrating on internal revenue generating alterations. More thread drift, Sorry. I quiet agree about the hangers what a waste of money,time and effort.At least one became useful for security checks, they should of been the west end of the ramp,end of rant |
|
