747 flights, quick Google Search https://www.aviation24.be/search/?cx=00541 ... 3235791j32
Brussels region noise regulation
Moderator: Latest news team
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
And they're moving to ... Liege? Nope, of course not! Prague and Amsterdam it is! Another carrier leaving not just the airport, but the country. And taking the jobs with them. Just like all the others who have left and will leave, despite all the idiots claiming those carriers could just be moved to other Belgian airports. A few weeks until Magma does the same, and they too will leave the country.luchtzak wrote: ↑11 May 2017, 18:01 Brussels Airport press release about Air Cargo Global leaving
https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/air-car ... s-airport/
- Established02
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: 16 Oct 2002, 00:00
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Has anyone seen an aircraft of Magma in recent weeks, months or years?
Several years ago we could frequently see a 747 with MAGMA titles.
But since Air Cargo Global started operations at BRU, I have not anymore seen an aircraft with MAGMA titles.
My BRU pictures on Facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brussels ... 6457430401
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brussels ... 6457430401
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Yeah, and you know what that solution is? Moving to another airport of course. Why be bothered by the insane Belgian politicians and unions if there are no such issues in AMS and PRG i.e.?
Jet... gone
Yangtze... gone
Global... gone
Magma... almost gone
EasyJet... almost gone
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
New instructions on how to take off at Brussels Airport
-
- Posts: 7
- Joined: 23 Feb 2009, 16:29
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
As far as I know, it was Magma that was chartering the aircraft of Air Cargo Global to transport their cargo. Until 2015, they where using aircraft of Turkish airline ACT Airlines, some of which had the "Magma"-titles.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
DjengisKhan wrote: ↑11 May 2017, 22:25As far as I know, it was Magma that was chartering the aircraft of Air Cargo Global to transport their cargo. Until 2015, they where using aircraft of Turkish airline ACT Airlines, some of which had the "Magma"-titles.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
1 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.Homo Aeroportus wrote: ↑11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
I would say: give it to them. But let them wait there and give priority to all intersection departures. Till Ryanair understands that they are not the only airline who wants to avoid the fines by using full length.
-
- Posts: 230
- Joined: 25 Jan 2007, 17:18
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
There is a catch in their procedure, the departures towards the south start with a left turn at 1700 ft, the earlier you turn, the shorter the departure is. I think that's their only aim
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
It most certainly doesn't offer more capacity, quite the opposite.Hue wrote: ↑12 May 2017, 13:431 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.Homo Aeroportus wrote: ↑11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.teach wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 08:17It most certainly doesn't offer more capacity, quite the opposite.Hue wrote: ↑12 May 2017, 13:431 runway for arrivals and 1 runway for departures is safer and offers more capacity imo than mixed operations on both 25L & R.Homo Aeroportus wrote: ↑11 May 2017, 17:26 relocating the RWY25L threshold will alleviate the problem especially because, thanks to the necessary parallel TWY to be built also, this will enable spreading the departures over two runways.
But even this is not an "easy solution".
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
So we put SN's 330s who take off from full lenght at the back of the queue as well?
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Mixed operations from both runways would always give you a higher overall capacity than having one runway dedicated to landings and one to take-offs. Cases in point: Gatwick and Heathrow. Gatwick operates a single runway in mixed mode, and achieves some 55 movements per hour. Heathrow achieves some 80 - 85 per hour, with dedicated runways for take-offs and landings. That's less than 45 per runway, vs 55 at Gatwick.Poiu wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 09:30 Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
We keep the normal take off clearance for aircraft that, technically, do need the full length. But aircraft that can take off safely from an intersection, and who have done this till now, have to show fairplay towards the others.
Belgocontrol said in their reaction (11th May) to Ryanair's announcement that the airport cannot handle it when all aircraft would do this: Belgocontrol wijst daarnaast op een capaciteitsprobleem. "Mochten alle piloten op deze zelfde wijze willen opstijgen, dan heeft dat zware gevolgen voor de capaciteit van het luchtverkeer op de luchthaven".
Translated: Belgocontrol points towards a capacity problem. If all pilots would like to take off like this (= the Ryanair-way), it will have serious consequences for the airport capacity".
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
LHR has a lot more heavies than LGW. Landing and take off roll are longer so reduced capacity.teach wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 12:08I'm sorry, but that simply isn't true. Mixed operations from both runways would always give you a higher overall capacity than having one runway dedicated to landings and one to take-offs. Cases in point: Gatwick and Heathrow. Gatwick operates a single runway in mixed mode, and achieves some 55 movements per hour. Heathrow achieves some 80 - 85 per hour, with dedicated runways for take-offs and landings. That's less than 45 per runway, vs 55 at Gatwick.Poiu wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 09:30 Teach, I think you misunderstood HUE, landing capacity can be increased by using the two runways, but it makes you loose more in take off capacity, so the overall capacity decreases. Using 25L for take off would considerably reduce landing capacity. You could use it occasionally for departures in the 5nm gap between a landing heavy and a medium behind without loosing capacity though.
If alternating TO/LDG would create extra capacity LHR would be dong it on both runways.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
The number of heavies is largely irrelevant in the way LHR operates: thy bundle heavies together for both take-offs and landings, meaning they only lose capacity when a heavy is followed by a smaller plane. This isn't realy somehing that's up for debate you know: mixed ops means larger capacity.
The only reason LHR doesn't use mixed ops today is because of exactly the reason this topic exists: aircraft noise. At LHR, the compromise has for many years been to use one runway for landings, the other for take-offs, and in the case of westerly operations, to switch both at exactly 3pm. That way the people under the approach only have to tolerate the planes flying over their houses for half the day. That's the ONLY reason they've got those separated ops. In fact, scrapping the runway alternation scheme has been proposed as a way to increase capacity at LHR, but local councils want nothing of it. See this press release as an example: http://www.cookham.com/forum/index.php? ... 683.0;wap2 As the article states, mixed runway ops would mean an extra 45.000 movements at LHR per year.
Re: Brussels region noise regulation
I was not talking about wake turbulence, but about runway occupancy time!teach wrote: ↑13 May 2017, 16:16
The number of heavies is largely irrelevant in the way LHR operates: thy bundle heavies together for both take-offs and landings, meaning they only lose capacity when a heavy is followed by a smaller plane. This isn't realy somehing that's up for debate you know: mixed ops means larger capacity.
A heavy 747 rolls for 60 seconds a 737 for 40, the number of heavies does have a serious impact on capacity.