VLM / Embraer or 319

A318 · Post by **A318** » 24 Sep 2003, 17:16

Avro wrote:
Ground_crew wrote:The ERJ-170 is a beautiful plane but like I comment before the cabin space looks pretty small to me.
Bart, told us a few months ago that the cabin of the ERJ-170 was quite spacious and very nice.
Chris
8)

Well Chris when you take a look here: https://www.aviation24.be/ftopic1289-20.html when I made the comment about the small cabin, Bart replied with

Yes, apparently (rumours) the plane is nice but the aircraft-cabin and aircraft-galley does need some improvement.

You compare the ERJ-170 cabin with the Fokker 50 which is not correct. If you want to compare the cabin from the ERJ-170 you end up with the Fokker 70 and it has a much bigger cabin space then the ERJ-170.
Besides that you can probably not deny that the cabin space from the A318 is looking much wider then the one of the ERJ-170 right?
Don't get me wrong I do like the ERJ-170 a lot but when an airline like VLM wants to expand I think the best choice would be the A318. It is a very nice "small" but spacious airplane which offers a pretty good performance at a very good price and maintenance costs. Next to that I think the pax would apreciate the comfortable way of flying in this plane.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 24 Sep 2003, 17:25

Besides that you can probably not deny that the cabin space from the A318 is looking much wider then the one of the ERJ-170 right?

I don't deny it at all

You compare the ERJ-170 cabin with the Fokker 50 which is not correct

I compared it to the F-50, because VLM currently uses the F-50, that's all.
I didn't wanted to comapre it to the F-70.

Ciao
Chris
8)

bravo767 · Post by **bravo767** » 24 Sep 2003, 22:23

snfreak wrote:I was there when that picture of the Virgin 733 was taken the plane was empty with very low fuel and used all the runway so... a full 733 will not be able to land safely in antwerp for my opinion

I landed B737-200 -300 and -400 at max landing weight on short runways: Funchal and Mykonos before their runway extensions and Chios or Skiathos. All those were between 1400 and 1500m. Sabena operated to ANR with 737-200. It just requires special qualification (simulator and/or on site training) and T/O or Landing is captain only. Take off weight is limited but for a short trip you still can go to max payload.

Happy landings

nwa757 · Post by **nwa757** » 27 Sep 2003, 03:55

What about the Canadair CRJ-900? That is what I think they will choose because:

A. not as big of a risk to take

2. lower operating costs

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 27 Sep 2003, 10:20

I don't think they'll take the CRJ, because it has a very small cabin, which isn't good at all for business passengers.

Chris
8)

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 27 Sep 2003, 10:43

How many of you knowledgable people have actually had any experience of the London City Airport runway??

I have made several flights to and from that airport (as well as several spotting trips).

I can assure you that there is no way an Airbus jet could land there! The approach is twice as steep as a conventional airport, with many buildings in the way.

The only jet aircraft suitable for airline service at the airport is the Avro RJ, that is the only one certified to land on that runway.

The majority of flights are: Fokker 50, ATR 42, Dornier 328, BAe 146/Avro RJ, Saab 340/2000, and a small number of buisness jets.

Before you all so casually dismiss what I say about this airport, remember - I have taken off from there, I have landed there, I have spotted there. Listen to the voice of experience about this airport, just for once!!!!!

Whatever may be ideal for ANR is most certainly not the ideal for LCY!!!!!

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 27 Sep 2003, 11:03

I agree wth you Comet, but don't undersetimate the Aribus jet

Alitalia uses an A319 to and from FLorence, which has a very small runway too.

I've seen it taking off and I must say I was impressed 8O

Ciao
Chris
8)

Post by **sn26567** » 27 Sep 2003, 11:58

Avro wrote:I don't think they'll take the CRJ, because it has a very small cabin, which isn't good at all for business passengers.

Have you ever flown a CRJ, Chris?

Its cabin is wider than that of an ERJ145, and probably as wide as the ERJ170! And you don't dismiss the ERJ, do you?

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 27 Sep 2003, 12:36

Avro wrote:I agree wth you Comet, but don't undersetimate the Aribus jet

Alitalia uses an A319 to and from FLorence, which has a very small runway too.

I've seen it taking off and I must say I was impressed 8O

Ciao
Chris
8)

I'm not underestimating the Airbus, I do like the Airbus types generally, but I do not think LCY will ever see them on its runway. As well as being short, it's also narrow, and there is no real potential for extending the runway as it juts out into a dock in the River Thames with alot of built up land around it.

The airport also has very strict operating regulations regarding number of flights per day, opening times, an enforced 24 hour closure period from lunchtime Saturday to lunchtime Sunday.

The aircraft originally shortlisted by VLM are the ATR, the Saab 2000 and the Fokker 50, so they are not really jet-orientated.

cyriusvirus · Post by **cyriusvirus** » 27 Sep 2003, 14:48

@Fuji-Monster

Well thx for helping !

I meen when you repaint those planes you need a blank model... So i would like to now where you can find them

See you

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 28 Sep 2003, 12:55

sn26567 wrote:
Avro wrote:I don't think they'll take the CRJ, because it has a very small cabin, which isn't good at all for business passengers.
Have you ever flown a CRJ, Chris?

Its cabin is wider than that of an ERJ145, and probably as wide as the ERJ170! And you don't dismiss the ERJ, do you?

I never flew the CRJ, but from what I saw on different pictures it seemed to me that the CRJ had a smaller cabin than the ERJ-170

Ciao
Chris
8)

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 28 Sep 2003, 14:04

I've not finished my piece on London City yet.

When that airport opened it was called STOL-port (as in Short Take Off and Landing), to some extent that still applies.

So how would an Airbus jet cope with such an airport?

I would be interested to hear your comments now.

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 28 Sep 2003, 14:26

Comet wrote:So how would an Airbus jet cope with such an airport?

I don't know exactly how, but I'm sure that Airbus would try to find a solution to operate the A318 out of LCY if there is any demand.
They did the same for Alitalia with the A319 in Florence.

I guess, the A318 would not be allowed to take-off with MTOW.
Maybe they could put more powerfull reversers on the A318

Ciao
Chris
8)

vliegtuigfreak · Post by **vliegtuigfreak** » 28 Sep 2003, 15:34

Avro wrote:Maybe they could put more powerfull reversers on the A318

Wow, that must be cool!

Greetingzz
Sonny

__________________
SNBA, Sobelair, VLM, Virgin Express, Thomas Cook, belgian airlines to be proud of!!

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 29 Sep 2003, 09:53

A few remarks:

Maybe they could put more powerfull reversers on the A318

For performance calulations (Landing Distance --> regulations) Thrust Reverse may NOT be taken into account, so more powerfull reversers are not a solution.

Second, the payload restrictions on the EMB170 would be high at EBAW, not to mention the A319. VLM already had payload restrictions on their F50: on the Geneva flight VLM couldn't operate its F50 with full fuel and pax

. There have been 737's here indeed, BUT: VEX has flown the 737 empty, Sabena had the 737-200, something different from a A319!, and there has been a 737-600 here, but it had about 60 pax and only fuel to fly to Southern France. And the landing distances of the B737 are even smaller than those of the Airbus.

Then the LCY issue: the only jets up to now to have the LCY certification are the AVRO and the Fokker. Even the CRJ and ERJ don't have the certification. I really (almost sure) don't think a A319 would be realistic. Plus, where can they put them? LCY has a tiny apron, don't think there's any room to park a A319. I don't know about the EMB170

So IF VLM gets the EMB170 or A318/9 (the EMB170 being more realistic), it would be for its EBBR base, not EBAW and not to EGLC. Unless the EMB170 has similar performances as the F70 (wich is capable to land at LCY and whose payload restrictions at EBAW are "acceptable").

And for 1st of October; do you know about what time it arrives?[/quote]

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 29 Sep 2003, 10:02

You won't see a Fokker jet at LCY, the only ones you see there in airline service are the BAe 146/Avro RJ.

Yes, LCY does have a small apron. The aircraft have to park with their tails towards the terminal and their noses towards the runway so as not to obscure the view of the air traffic controllers.

LCY also has a short runway!

Any more questions just ask the LCY Flyer (ME!!)

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 29 Sep 2003, 11:36

I have a picture of the certification of the Fokker 70 at LCY, it is certified, and that's all I was saying. I'm not saying they fly there, I'm just saying they are certified to fly there. The ERJ/CRJ don't fly there either, but they are also NOT certified. The Fokker is.

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 29 Sep 2003, 11:38

"http://www.lcacc.org/aircraft/" --> aircraft that are certified at LCY

For some time the Fokker 70 was used at London City Airport to provide scheduled services on behalf of Air France but it is not currently in use.

Comet · Post by **Comet** » 29 Sep 2003, 11:43

That's probably the reason why VLM want to resurrect the construction of the Fokker 70 with the Rekkof project.

They will only go with types that can fly into London City, that I do know!

EBAW_flyer · Post by **EBAW_flyer** » 29 Sep 2003, 11:48

Indeed, I was thinking the same thing, the Fokker 70 fits perfect in VLM's requirements.

Aviation24.be

VLM / Embraer or 319

Thx