Get a behind-the-scenes perspective as Airbus showcases its product line of modern jetliners with an impressive formation flight, which included the A320neo, A330-200, A350-900 and A380 aircraft.
A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: Airbus. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése
A következő címkéjű bejegyzések mutatása: Airbus. Összes bejegyzés megjelenítése
Wizzair A321 low-pass over the River Danube
On 1 May 2016, our Airbus A321 aircraft flew low above the Danube in the historical centre of Budapest as part of the Nagy Futam air show. This wouldn’t have been possible without the excellent expertise of Chief Flight Operations Officer Captain David Morgan and Captain András Arday, who performed 3 breath-taking flights above the Danube!
[Jobs at close from Malpensa] Maintenance Supervisor
Maintaining an aircraft and ensuring that it is constantly airworthy. Airplanes have to be in perfect shape so we need technicians who are always prepared, skilled and up-to-date in order to operate both routine and extraordinary maintenance. You have to keep studying but you won’t get bored...
Line maintenance Swiss-módra
Állóhelyen végrehajtott rutinellenőrzések a Swiss International Air Lines HB-JHC lajstromjelű A330-asán..
Avionics bay vulnerability?
As the aviation industry secures itself by ensuring passenger personal electronic devices are charged and rerouting flights around war zones, a vulnerability lurks just beneath the carpet of the venerable Boeing 777, and has attracted attention on aviation forums and social media.
In the forward galley area near the L1 door and flight deck, a small access panel sits below the carpet which acts as the gateway to the 777’s electronics and engineering bay. The bay, referred to as the ‘E/E bay’, contains many of the 777’s extremely sensitive systems. A recently posted YouTube video, below, shows how shockingly easy it is to access the E/E bay, and how seemingly little has been done to keep people out.
The systems in the E/E bay vary from fuse panels to the Airplane Information Management System (AIMS), also known as “the brains” of the aircraft. AIMS provides flight and maintenance crews all pertinent information concerning the overall condition of the airplane, its maintenance requirements and its key operating functions, including flight, thrust and communications management, according to Boeing’s description. Also in the E/E bay are several tanks containing oxygen connected to the flight crews’ masks.
Needless to say, any flight would be extremely vulnerable if a passenger were to access this bay in-flight. The vulnerability seems to exist on some Boeing 777s, 767s and 747s, as other models (including those manufactured by Airbus) have either a locked access panel, or the panel is located inside the flight deck.
A late 2013 post on pprune.org (Professional Pilots Rumor Network) notes that the E/E hatch on the Boeing 787 requires a special tool to open, but that this security feature had not trickled down to the 777 at that time. Additionally, it noted that some airlines have bolted the E/E hatch shut not because of security concerns, but due to incidents where employees would fall down the hatch when someone else was inside doing maintenance. Indeed, Boeing published this article on how crew can avoid falls through proper and consistent use of hatch barriers.
Earlier this month the popular Crikey blog suggested that the technical media “has been at pains not to discuss” an alternative access route to the cockpit for years. But Air New Zealand confirmed the security flaw in the 777, said Crikey, after news surfaced that one of its captains locked a co-pilot out of the cockpit for several minutes. A 2012 video about the 777 E/E bay notes that the breakers for the flight deck door locking system are located in the E/E bay.
Whether a lack of directive to secure the E/E bay from passenger access may be due to cost or lack of concern, it seems odd that such a public vulnerability is allowed to exist on such a popular aircraft. Will industry address this issue now?
Boeing declined to comment. The FAA did not comment.
This video shows a tour of a Boeing 777’s avionics bay. It’s particularly fascinating in that it shows how you can descend from the main cabin to the lower level through a hatch, and from there make your way to the forward cargo hold or to the outside, through a hatch close to the nose landing gear...
This is a similar video for the Airbus A330 where they actually walk from the avionics bay to the forward cargo hold...
Source:
https://aviationnotes.wordpress.com/2014/11/
https://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/2014/07/22/will-industry-address-vulnerability-beneath-the-carpet-of-the-777/
AF 358 - final report
Download it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6iTndWdXhsTjNMQmc/view?usp=sharing
AF 358 aka the "Toronto Miracle"
 |
| Completely burnt out - photo taken the other day |
Air France Flight 358 was an Airbus A340-313E, registration F-GLZQ, on a scheduled international flight from Paris, France, to Toronto, Ontario, Canada. On August 2, 2005, just after landing at Toronto Pearson International Airport at 4:01 p.m. EDT, it crashed into nearby Etobicoke Creek, approximately 300 m beyond the end of the runway. All 309 passengers and crew aboard the Airbus A340 survived, with 12 people sustaining serious injuries. The accident highlighted the role played by highly trained flight attendants during an emergency.
Aircraft
The aircraft operating Flight 358 was a 295-seat Airbus A340-313E powered by four CFM International CFM56 engines. With manufacturer's serial number 289 and registration F-GLZQ, it was first flown on August 3, 1999, and delivered to Air France on September 7, 1999. There were 297 passengers and 12 crew aboard the Airbus. On this flight, it was flown by Captain Alain Rosaye, 57, and First
Officer Frédéric Naud, 43. Rosaye was a seasoned pilot with 15,411 total
flight hours and Naud had 4,834 hours of flight time.
Passengers
Out of the 297 passengers, there were 168 adult males, 118 adult females, 8 children and 3 infants. Among them, 3 supplemental cabin crew members were seated in crew seats, one of them in the third occupant seat of the flight deck and two in the flight crew rest area. The passengers consisted of businesspersons, vacationers and students.
Incident
The accident occurred on August 2, 2005 at 16:03 EDT. Air France Flight 358, an Airbus A340-313E with 297 passengers and 12 crew, overshot the end of runway 24L at Toronto Pearson International Airport and came to rest in a small ravine 300 m past the end of the runway. All passengers and crew evacuated the aircraft successfully. Twelve major injuries and no fatalities resulted from the accident. The rest suffered minor or no injuries. A post-crash fire destroyed the aircraft.
The flight landed during exceptionally bad weather – severe winds, heavy rain, and localized thunderstorms near the airport – and touched down further along the runway than usual. Some passengers report that the plane was rocking from side to side before landing, possibly due to turbulence and gusting winds associated with the storm systems.
The plane was cleared to land at 16:04 EDT on Runway 24L, which, at 2,700 m in length, is the shortest runway at Pearson Airport. After touchdown, the aircraft did not stop before the end of the runway, but continued for 300 meters until it slid into the Etobicoke Creek ravine with a speed of 148 km/h, on the western edge of the airport near the interchange of Dixie Road and Highway 401.
 |
| Passenger photo taken during the evacuation |
After coming to rest, fire was noticed outside the aircraft, and an evacuation order was given. The two rear left exits remained closed due to the fire. On opening the emergency exits, one of the right middle exit slides (R3) deflated after being punctured by debris from the aircraft, while one of the left slides (L2) failed to deploy at all. A number of passengers were forced to jump from the aircraft to exit. The actions of the flight attendants ensured that all of the passengers were evacuated within the required 90 second time frame.
Emergency response teams responded to the incident and were on site within 52 seconds of the crash occurring.
After the crash, some passengers - including those who were injured - scrambled up the ravine to Highway 401 which runs almost parallel to the runway. Peel Regional Police located the first officer and several passengers along Highway 401, receiving assistance from motorists who were passing the airport when the crash occurred. Some motorists took injured people, including the pilot, directly to hospitals. Other motorists took non-injured passengers to the airport. The main fire burned for two hours, ending just before 18:00 EDT. All fires were out by early afternoon on 3 August 2005, and investigators were able to begin their work.
The accident caused the cancellation or diversion of hundreds of flights, with ripple effects throughout the North American air traffic system. By that night, four of the five runway surfaces at Pearson were back in service, but the flight and passenger backlog continued through the next day.
This was the first time an Airbus A340 series was involved in a crash, ending its 14-year clean record. The aircraft involved entered service in 1999 and had its last maintenance check in France on 5 July 2005. It made 3,711 flights for a total of 28,426 flight hours.
Weather
A METAR for Pearson was released almost exactly at the time of the accident. It stated that the weather at 16:04 EDT consisted of winds from 340° true at 24 kn gusting to 33 kn, with 1 1⁄4 miles visibility in heavy thunderstorms and rain. The ceiling was overcast at 4,500 feet above ground level with towering cumulus clouds. The temperature was 23 °C. According to the Canada Air Pilot, runway 24L has a heading of 227° true (237° magnetic), and the minima for the ILS approach are ceiling 200 feet above ground level and visibility 1⁄2 mile or runway visual range (RVR) of 2600.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation reported that the crash occurred two hours after a ground stop was declared at the airport because of severe thunderstorms in the area ("red alert" status, which, for safety reasons, halts all ground activity on the apron and gate area. Aircraft can still land, and take off if still in queue). Visibility at the time of the accident was reported to be very poor. There was lightning, strong gusty winds, and hail at the time and the rain just began as the plane was landing. Within two hours the winds increased from 5 to 30 km/h and the temperature dropped from 30 to 23 °C. A severe thunderstorm warning was in effect since 11:30 a.m. and all outbound flights and ground servicing operations had been canceled but landings were still permitted.
Injuries
Out of the twelve passengers who suffered major injuries, nine suffered the injuries from the impact and three suffered the injuries from the evacuation. Most of the injuries occurred to passengers and crew located in the flight deck and forward cabin.
According to passenger reports, the leap from the aircraft to the ground caused many of the injuries, including broken legs, and ruptured vertebrae. The Captain sustained back and head injuries during the impact of the crash when his seat was wrenched out of place by the force of the impact, causing him to hit his head against the overhead controls. Minor injuries included twisted ankles, sore necks, bruises and effects from smoke inhalation. A total of 33 persons were taken to various hospitals within and outside Toronto for treatment, of which 21 were treated for minor injuries and released.
Investigation
Evidence
 |
| Too far down the runway... |
The flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were sent to France for analysis. Preliminary results indicate that the plane landed 1,220 m from the start of the 2,743 m runway (much further along than normal) at a ground speed of 148 knots – 140 knots being considered normal – with a tailwind, skidded down the runway and was traveling over 70 knots as it overran the tarmac and fell into the ravine. Tire marks extend 490 m indicating emergency braking action.
Réal Levasseur Shedalin, the TSB's lead investigator for the accident, said the plane landed too far down the runway to have been able to stop properly on such wet pavement. Investigators have found no evidence of engine trouble, brake failure, or problems with the spoilers or thrust reversers.
Ireggularities
The final report of the TSB investigation states: "During the flare, the aircraft travelled through an area of heavy rain, and visual contact with the runway environment was significantly reduced." This suggests the possibility that the plane was hit in heavy weather by a wet downburst, causing the Airbus to land long. Based on the Air France A340-313 Quick Reference Handbook (QRH), page 34G, "Landing Distance Without Autobrake", the minimum distance of 1,155 m would be used in dry conditions to bring the aircraft to a complete stop. In wet conditions the braking distance increases with a 5-knot tailwind, reversers operative, and a 6.3 mm of downpour on the runway to 2,016 m. This runway length was obviously not available at touch down of AF 358.
Conclusions
The TSB concluded in their final report that the pilots had missed cues that would have prompted them to review their decision to land. In their report the TSB cited that
- Air France had no procedures related to distance required from thunderstorms during approaches and landings.
- After the autopilot had been disengaged, the pilot flying increased engine thrust in reaction to a decrease in airspeed and a perception that the aircraft was sinking (spatial disorientation). The power increase contributed to an increase in aircraft energy and the aircraft deviated above the flight path.
- At 300 feet above ground level, the wind changed from a headwind to a tailwind.
- While approaching the threshold, the aircraft entered an intense downpour and the forward visibility became severely reduced.
- When the aircraft was near the threshold, the crew members committed to the landing and believed their go-around option no longer existed.
- The pilot not flying did not make the standard callouts concerning the spoilers and thrust reversers during the landing roll. This contributed to the delay in the pilot flying selecting the thrust reversers.
- There were no landing distances indicated on the operational flight plan for a contaminated runway condition at the Toronto / Lester B. Pearson International Airport.
- The crew did not calculate the landing distance required for runway 24L despite aviation routine weather reports (METARs) calling for thunderstorms. The crew were not aware of the margin of error.
- The topography at the end of the runway beyond the area and the end of Runway 24L contributed to aircraft damage and injuries to crew and passengers.
The TSB advised changes to bring Canadian runway standards in line with those used abroad, either by extending them to have a 300 m runway safety area (or Runway End Safety Area) or, where that is impossible, providing an equivalently effective backup method of stopping aircraft. Other recommendations that the TSB made includes having the Department of Transport establish clear standards limiting approaches and landings in convective weather for all operators at Canadian airports, and mandate training for all pilots involved in Canadian air operations to better enable them to make landing decisions in bad weather.
Compensation
Within one week of the crash, cash payments ranging from C$1,000 to C$3,700 were given to passengers for interim emergency use. These funds were given to passengers through an emergency centre set up near the airport. These payments were independent of the claims process, which has been started for passengers who have not retained counsel. It is expected that the insurers of Air France will pay for all damages as well as extra compensation for having passengers go through the ordeal; however, only amounts of €6,000 to €9,000 have been offered, prompting passengers to turn to the lawsuit to seek legal action. All passengers have also been offered a free round-trip ticket to any Air France destination in the world in the same fare class in which they were originally booked on AF358.
After a lawsuit lasting four and a half years, Air France settled the compensation lawsuit with 184 of the 297 passengers (no crew members included) aboard Flight 358. The compensation is for a total of $12 million. Air France will pay $10 million, and have been released from passengers' claims stemming from the incident, according to the judgment's summary. Airbus and Goodrich, the company that made the emergency evacuation system on the plane will pay $1.65 million, and claims against them in a lawsuit have been released.
Litigation
Passenger class action
Within a few days after the accident, a class action suit was filed on behalf of all passengers on board by representative plaintiff Suzanne Deak to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The attorneys representing Deak and the passengers are Gary R. Will and Paul Miller from Will Barristers in Toronto. The plaintiffs sought payments for general and aggravated damages in the amount of $75 million, and payments for special damages and pecuniary damages in the amount of $250 million. A second class action lawsuit was also filed by plaintiffs Sahar Alqudsi and Younis Qawasmi (her husband) for $150 million a few days later. However, both suits had since merged as only one lawsuit was allowed to proceed to court.
In December 2009, a $12 million settlement agreement was reached between Air France and the class. The settlement resolved the claims of 184 passengers and their families. Forty-five other passengers had opted out of the suit, while 68 others have already agreed to a settlement with Air France.
Air France stated that it would not lose any money from the lawsuits as it is covered by its insurers. Air France did not provide further contacts and assistance to those who retained counsel of the lawsuit until an agreement has been made between both sides' lawyers.
Air France lawsuit
 |
| R(E)SA could have prevented this to happen..? |
In June 2008, almost 3 years after the accident, Air France filed a lawsuit against the Greater Toronto Airports Authority, NAV Canada, and the Government of Canada for $180 million. In the statement of claim filed with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Air France alleged that the "GTAA failed to provide a safe environment for the conduct of civil air operations." The statement also claims that "The overrun and the consequent injuries to persons and damage to property were caused solely by the negligence of the defendants". Air France says Transport Canada was "negligent" by not implementing the recommendations of a coroner's inquest into the 1978 crash (Air Canada Flight 189) that urged the creation of a 300-metre safety area to give aircraft more room to stop after landing.
Aftermath
An inquiry by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada found runway safety zones at the end of runways at some Canadian airports are below accepted international standards. The report highlighted that Toronto Pearson's runways meet current Canadian standards, and that runway 24L has a de facto 150 metre RESA. The TSB also suggested precautions are needed to be taken by airlines when landing in bad weather.
Flight 358 is no longer used on this route (number is now used for Air France flights from Roland Garros Airport in Sainte-Marie, Réunion to Paris). The flight route designation for Air France's Paris-Toronto route is now Flight 356, using a Boeing 777 aircraft.
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_358
IT 148
Az alábbi zárójelentés a BEA honlapján található francia nyelvű html-fájl általunk készített pdf-változata..
Download it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6ia192SjQwcnBWRVU/view?usp=sharing
Download it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6ia192SjQwcnBWRVU/view?usp=sharing
Air Inter Flight 148
Jelen zárójelentést a Ministère de l'Equipement, des Transports et du Tourisme adta ki francia nyelven - alábbi, angol nyelvű változatát az Universität Bielefeld Technische Fakultät tanszékén készítették.
Download it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6iNkxDV045bWM1TFE/view?usp=sharing
Download it:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8aiechh7K6iNkxDV045bWM1TFE/view?usp=sharing
[Showcase] Aurora A319
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BUK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VQ-BBD |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VQ-BBD |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BUK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BWK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VQ-BBD |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BWK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BWK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BWK |
 |
| Aurora A319-100 // VP-BUO |
Leszállás Hargeisában A321-essel
Nem a legszebben kivitelezett jobb főfutós touch-down a szomáliföldi főváros repterének 06-os pályáján..
Sima leszállás az akadályokkal tarkított, épp hosszabbítás alatt lévő 06-os pályán ill. felszállás a 24-esről..:
..és ilyen, mikor rádiónavigációs segítség híján vizuálisan kéne megtalálni a pályát a sivatagban, mielőtt még odaér a zivatarcella.. :o
Sima leszállás az akadályokkal tarkított, épp hosszabbítás alatt lévő 06-os pályán ill. felszállás a 24-esről..:
..és ilyen, mikor rádiónavigációs segítség híján vizuálisan kéne megtalálni a pályát a sivatagban, mielőtt még odaér a zivatarcella.. :o
Leszállás Dzsibutiban A321-essel
Így néz ki egy vizuális megközelítés a dzsibuti főváros 09-es pályájára..
..és ilyen, mikor homokvihar nehezíti a leszállást az ellenkező irányból (RWY27):
..és ilyen, mikor homokvihar nehezíti a leszállást az ellenkező irányból (RWY27):
Leszállás Mogadishuban A321-gyel
Leszállás a szomáliai főváros repterének 05-ös...
...ill. 23-as pályáján, a város felett átrepülve:
...ill. 23-as pályáján, a város felett átrepülve:
Steep Approach A318-módra
Leszállás az Airbus 318-as prototípusával London City 27-es, majd egy HUD-dal felszerelt példánnyal Toulouse 14R pályáján..
Long Haul on a Short Plane
An Analysis and Trip Report of British Airways JFK-LCY Service
By Chris Sloan / Published June 9, 2014
By Chris Sloan / Published June 9, 2014
Today there are such luxuries as private cocoon like suite, advanced in-flight entertainment systems, and high-speed in-flight connectivity. Yet despite being from the pre-internet era, Concorde did something nobody has been able to duplicate: being a time machine. Appropriately Concorde flights were given the airline’s most prestigious flight numbers, such as BA001 and BA002.
Beyond the famous cadre of celebrities who made the supersonic jet so glamorous, Concorde was a C-Suite executive’s capitalist tool. Executives could leave London in the morning, have a business lunch, crucial meeting, or sign a contract, and return home to London for dinner.
On October 24, 2003 after some 50,000 flights and 2.5 million passengers, BA’s iconic Concorde conducted its last scheduled champagne-soaked crossing between London and New York. A victim of changing times, the jet was scuttled due to rising fuel prices, environmental concerns, heavy operating costs because of age and maintenance, and the triumph of the internet age. The need for Mach 2 speed could no longer be justified.
An era had come to a close, yielding to slower, more pedestrian forms of intercontinental jet travel. Many felt that technology had actually taken a step backwards. C Suite executives hopping between Wall Street and The City would have to “make due” in subsonic aircraft, albeit in lie-flat seats in First and Business with the high-end, world-renowned service that BA is known for.
A New Product for a New Age
Right from the get go this service was designed to link the hearts of the world’s two financial capitals, with London City located, quite literally, in the heart of the UK city’s financial district. Somewhat courageously, this service, directly aimed at the financial industry, was launched in the midst of a raging recession.
On the face of it, this didn’t seem like a new idea. MaxJet and Eos both operated an all business class service between New York from an alternative airport: London Stansted, a fairly distant airport located to the north of Central London. Both operated large aircraft such as the 757 and 767, and their business models revolved around a discounted business class fare rather than as a premium priced offering. MaxJet and Eos both lacked any sort of meaningful network and critical mass to attract business contracts or flyer loyalty. These factors, coupled with bad timing and economic headwinds resulted in their demise after just a few years of service in the bust of late 2007 and 2008.
British Airways’ London City service on the other hand has been a profitable operation. It boasts a relatively high load factor thanks to squarely marketing to the high-yield financial services industry, some of whom commute each week between the two cities. Perhaps more importantly, BA is able to use the London City service as an exclusive marketing edge on both ends of the pond that no one else can offer.
The headline of the service is clearly convenience, catering to a very specific customer. Passengers departing either city are literally able to show up at the airport less than an hour before departure, something almost unheard of. At New York JFK, a full dinner at the airport is complimentary for early arrivers, allowing them to take full advantage of the short flying time to sleep while onboard.
The two flights from New York JFK, BA002 and BA004, depart at 7:00pm and 9:45pm respectively. With a quoted gate-to-gate block time of 7 hours, 15 minutes, the in-flight service is tailored for maximum sleep time so the passengers can hit the ground rested and running for a full day’s business the next day. Passengers conveniently clear customs and claim their bags so quickly that they can be at their desks or a hotel arrivals center an hour after landing in London.
The two flights from London City to JFK, BA 001 and BA003, depart at 9:45am and 4:00pm respectively. Due to a required technical stop at Shannon, Ireland for refueling, the flight is quoted at 9 hours, 10 minutes, nearly two hours longer than a normal widebody flight. BA puts the refueling stop to clever use, having passengers clear U.S. customs and immigration during the brief stop in Shannon. This is a huge boon to travelers wishing to avoid long waits upon arrival in the U.S.
Unfortunately, due to U.S. government cutbacks following sequestration, the afternoon flight of BA003 is no longer supported by this plan. Regardless, the very short check-in time and close-in location at London City more than makes up the difference for the longer block time. The westbound, mostly daytime, flight to New York allows for a very different, outstanding in-flight service and makes the time past quickly. Indeed with three cabin attendants to only 32 passengers the intimate cabin and attention is more like an executive jet than a commercial flight. As an added but expensive productivity enhancement, the London City flights offer a form of in-flight connectivity for email and text. No other BA aircraft are so equipped.
One would think this exclusive niche service targeted to the financial industry would come at a sizeable premium over BA’s Club World product, but that isn’t typically the case. The carrier claims that there is no pricing premium between a LCY Club World and a standard Club World ticket, though of course there are many factors that enter in actual ticket pricing.
A quick search on BA.com revealed an April 14th outbound and April 22nd return fully flexible round-trip ticket priced at $13,982. The same site quoted a normal JFK-LHR round-trip Club World ticket with a similar schedule at $13,360, including taxes. Of course, many of the passengers are flying on discounted corporate rates, which we will delve into later with our market analysis.
A Service like None Other
First time London City passengers more accustomed to wide-body aircraft on long-haul flights reportedly sometimes board the stubby narrow body A318 and ask “Where’s the rest of the plane?” The two “Baby Busses” operate a schedule of two round-trips per day Monday-Friday and one on Sunday. Both aircraft are ferried to Gatwick on Saturdays for maintenance, which is a low traffic day for this market. Besides, London City Airport is closed midday Saturday to midday Sunday. Sunday afternoon, LCY-JFK flights resume with BA003.
From a pilot’s perspective, this is a very unique operation. Optimized for operations into LCY’s 4,948’ long, 100’ wide narrow runway, the two A318s, G-EUNA and G-EUNB, are the only A320 family aircraft in the world equipped with steep approach software. The software modifies the control laws of the A318 when the function is selected by the pilots, automatically deploying some of the wing spoiler panels to provide additional drag when the aircraft is on final approach. The modification also provides alternative audio alerts to the crew and modifies spoiler deployment automatically below 120 feet as the aircraft lands.
This European Air Safety Agency certified software allows the A318 to perform approaches at descent angles of up to 5.5°, as opposed to the standard 3° for a normal approach. This also aids in noise abatement for this very urban-located airport. As we’ll detail later in the flight review, the take-offs and landings are quite thrilling, analogous to landing on an aircraft carrier, though very smooth.
The pilots who fly this mission are the only ones in the world that regularly fly the entire A318/A319/A320/A321 family in scheduled service. Only 50 pilots out of approximately 1000 A320 series qualified aviators at BA are able to secure this very senior, in demand bid. In fact, the A318 has the highest seniority of any BA fleet type. While both captains and co-pilots can perform take-offs, only the captain typically performs the precision landing at London City, though co-pilots are trained to perform it and practice it in the simulator.
Most crews are able to work two to three crossings per month. The rest of the time they fly normal short and medium haul schedules. Because of the specialized approach into LCY, the flight crews not only train in the simulator but in actual training flights with no passengers aboard, often during the plane’s weekend down time.
Flights from JFK to LCY typically carry 17 tons of fuel. On the London to New York segment, LCY’s short runway doesn’t allow the aircraft to take on a full load of fuel so 6 tons is more than ample to reach Shannon. Besides, the A318 doesn’t have the range, when fully loaded, to fly westbound from London City to New York owing to headwinds and weight restrictions at LCY. On the Shannon SNN-JFK segment, somewhere around 17-20 tons of fuel is taken up depending on forecasts.
The Gatwick based cabin crews are generally very senior as well, with only 250 on roster. This flight is considered so premium and is in such high demand that BA employees are not given free travel privileges on it. An interesting footnote is that with only two A318s in the fleet, there is no slack in the system when an aircraft is out of service for maintenance, so the airline times the heavier checks during lower demand times of the year and will only operate one aircraft. Against the backdrop of the dominant British Airways / American Airlines North Atlantic joint venture, there is no shortage of alternative flights for customers.
The Business Case for a Flight That Truly Means Business
The JFK-LCY nonstop is a small player in an overall sense, and also in a premium sense, as the following tables illustrate:
Route
|
Weekly Seats
|
Capacity Share
|
JFK-LHR
|
38438
|
68.8%
|
EWR-LHR
|
16219
|
29.0%
|
JFK-LCY
|
352
|
0.6%
|
JFK-LGW
|
873
|
1.6%
|
TOTAL
|
55882
|
Route
|
Weekly Premium Seats
|
Premium Capacity Share
|
JFK-LHR
|
8202
|
73.5%
|
EWR-LHR
|
2598
|
23.3%
|
JFK-LCY
|
352
|
3.2%
|
JFK-LGW
|
0
|
0.0%
|
TOTAL
|
11152
|
At 0.6% of total capacity and 3.2% of premium capacity, the LCY-JFK flights are all but irrelevant contributors to the volume on this city-pair market. That being said, we believe that the flights are profitable in their own right, and they of course play an enormous strategic role in one of the world’s most important business travel markets.
According to our analysis, to operate JFK-LCY nonstop using the A318, it costs roughly $31,200 per flight inclusive of ownership costs, assuming a standard valuation for British Airways’ A318s. The LCY-SNN-JFK flights meanwhile cost roughly $35,000, including ownership costs, due to added costs of operating via Shannon.
For January-August 2013, British Airways had the following operational characteristics on JFK-LCY. The carrier offered, 9,792 seats, filling 7,533 of them for a 76.93% load factor.
*Readers please note that all of these figures are estimate and subject to a wide potential margin of error. Our fare estimates are conservative.
Thus to break even in the first nine months of 2013, BA needed an average roundtrip revenue of $2,960 per passenger (excluding government taxes – which are typically around 20% of the ticket). So in this case, an average roundtrip fare of $3,550 means the carrier breaks even.
Keep in mind that if you adjust for seasonality (missing Oct-Dec, the figures will be lower during that period), the loads likely come down to 72-73%, and applying the same fixes yields a required break even fare of roughly $3,800.
The average fare, we estimate, is roughly $6,500 roundtrip, so you’re talking about 38% operating margins (at least double that of British Airways’ overall long haul network). The only adjustment is that if you look at the summer, R/T fares are 5-6k, so an overall average R/T fare for the year of $7,500 is reasonable, especially given that loads are highest in the summer.
The route is profitable; we’d estimate to the tune of $10-15 million a year net contribution to the bottom line once you include structural costs. Moreover, it plays an enormous strategic role in making the British Airways – American partnership the preferred operator in the lucrative New York City – London market, especially for the financial industry. At least another $3-5 million in profitability is tied to the boosts received due to corporate contracts and frequent flyer loyalty tied to the availability of this service.
Outbound Trip Report: New York JFK to London City LCY
The more I learned about this unique service, the more determined I needed to try it for myself. In this case, I would be flying both outbound and inbound flights as the experience is so different, depending on which direction one is heading.
There was no queue at the dedicated London City check-in desk. After checking my bag, for testing purposes only I assure you, I was through security and in BA’s sprawling Galleries Lounge just 15 minutes after arriving at the curb. With dinner waiting and time ticking, I undertook a cursory romp through BA’s lounge. Though crowded, and not as exclusive as the fabled Concorde Lounge, Galleries is a beautifully appointed, significant upgrade from its US domestic carrier counterpart. A tempting array of snacks and complimentary top shelf spirits and wine graced a number of bars, speedy Wi-Fi, power plugs o’plenty, and even an Elemis travel spa, were on offer. Though tempted for the massage and facial, I decided to remain on the program and stroll over to the pre-flight dining room.
This buffet style meal service offered a bit of something for all clientele, from vegetarian dishes such as eggplant roasted pepper and feta cheese tart, to kahari braised lamb with apricots, and seared arctic-char with French lentil tomato veloute’. For those with Asian tastes, a full line of curry, teriyaki, and noodle dishes were there for the indulgence.
Out of a sense of duty, I sampled small portions of just about everything including the deserts dubbed “Finale” which included date-nut bread pudding, chocolate mousse, and a Hudson valley farm cheese plate. A nice glass of Dom complimented this feast. A particular Monty Python sketch came to mind as I was forced to loosen my belt a bit. In one word, my review: “excellent”, but my fear: no room left in the belly to sample the so called “nightcap” service once onboard. Would my palette be able to overrule my already satiated appetite later?
The leisurely boarding took less than ten minutes. With the dark blue mood lighting, the soothing boarding theme of BA’s signature “Flower duet” by Lakme, and only fifteen passengers onboard, was BA trying to already subtly lull us all into sleep? While we waited for the cabin to be buttoned up, we were served champagne and our “nightcap” orders were taken. While examining the generous menu, it became crystal clear “nightcap” at BA means a lot more than a light snack and drink. The flight is typically catered for less than full capacity, as half of the passengers chose to sleep rather than eat, especially on the later evening flight. Each passenger was asked if they wished to be awoken for breakfast to maximize precious hours of sleep in this quick six hour and twenty minute crossing.
Sitting on our seats were Elemis amenity kits, nothing unusual in these, but the branded moisturizer was a very nice treat. Noise cancelling headphones with a multi-prong jack were sitting in the seatback along with the well regarded “High Life” in-flight magazine.
With no overhead in-flight entertainment center, we had an old school “live” safety briefing, very unusual for a long-haul flight. After a slight delay due to weather, we pushed back at 7:20pm and were airborne in less than ten minutes, avoiding the usual evening parking lot that is JFK. I actually was curious if this time sensitive flight was granted some sort of special priority. With the cabin lights immediately dimmed shortly after take-off, at least half of the cabin drifted off to dream land.
BA has left no detail un-turned especially with regards to sleep. Each of the two galleys features double sets of curtains with a dark threshold to make absolutely certain no light leaks into the cabin. The lavatory lights are dimmed very low as well when the door is open to the cabin. Thus with my resistance to sleep wearing low, I endeavor to sample the evening’s in-flight entertainment.
Due to weight and cost issues, there is no embedded IFE on the A318 fleet. Originally using older digital video players, BA switched to iPads in the fall of 2011. They are pre-stocked with an ample selection of up to 20 movies, 40 TV series, four games, and 32 music channels, though no moving map. As many passengers carry their own devices, sleep, or work the selection doesn’t need to quite reach the level of the carrier’s normal embedded IFE’s. Fans of “Downton Abbey” will be pleased to know that the series is represented here, appropriately enough.
I opened the side armrest thinking there was some sort of mounting bracket for the iPad but found these to be incompatible arms for the previous IFE. For those wishing to use their own devices US, UK, and EU power sockets are available at every seat – no adapter needed, though there are no USB plugs.
There was still one more feature unique to the London City service that I needed to try: On-Air, BA’s unusual answer to connectivity. Surprisingly, the two A318s are the only aircraft in BA’s worldwide fleet with in-flight connectivity. The rather pricey On-Air service is designed only for emails and SMS with mobile phones, no web surfing. You leave on your phone’s cellular data function and turn on roaming as opposed to Wi-Fi. Thankfully the system doesn’t support voice calls. Innovative when introduced in 2009, in an age before over-the-ocean satellite Ka-based in-flight internet, it is slow and in tonight’s case not working.
That would have to wait for the return flight home. It being a Friday night, there wasn’t anything pressing anyway. I reclined my Club World seat into a fully lie-flat 72” bed and shortly thereafter was lulled into dreamland by slight chop as we cruised at 39,000 feet and 550 mph over the North Atlantic. Even during turbulence or meal service the cabin is noticeably quiet.
An hour before arrival into London City, those who had opted to be awoken for breakfast were served fresh fruit, smoothies, and a bacon and egg sandwich. This hardy meal hit the spot and would be my final meal until dinner later that night. Caution: calorie and carb counters may find this flight challenging. For those wishing to sleep, a complimentary breakfast is available upon arrival at the arrivals hotel.
We began our gradual descent over the Irish Sea with 34 minutes left to go in the flight. The dimmed cabin lights seamlessly came up a few minutes later and the passengers began to stir from their slumber. The conscientious crew embodying BA’s longtime motto “To Fly. To Serve.” were still serving late breakfasts in the descent, not wishing to deny anyone of the most important meal of the day.
As there are no taxiways in this runway built out in the Thames, the plane does a 180 degree turn and backtracks partway down the runway to turn off on the tarmac. At 6:58AM the engines are shut down and the passengers alight from the plane down air-stairs to a waiting bus to the diminutive terminal.
An incredible fourteen minutes later, I have cleared immigration, collected my bags and cleared customs. Some passengers head to the nearby Raddison Blu New Edwardian Hotel where BA has contracted for an arrivals service of showers, gym and a breakfast. If this weren’t a Saturday morning, others would be in their officers in The City, Canary Warf, or the Docklands within 15 minutes. As for me, I walk 300 feet to the Terminal’s train station for the Docklands Light Railway. After transferring to the Tube, I am at the door of my hotel in the West End of London less than an hour after landing. This first leg delivered on both British Airways’ expected high standard of service and a precision and a seamless efficient product engineered for a very specific market that would be the envy of any airline.
Return Trip Report: London City LCY to New York JFK via Shannon, Ireland SNN
This will prove to be a much different experience then the overnight JFK-LCY flight a few days ago. After a quick ride from my hotel near Victoria Park on the London Underground and Docklands Railway, I arrive at London City an hour before the scheduled 9:45am local time departure of BA001. Remarkably, passengers on the westbound flights to New York only have to check-in 15 minutes prior to departure, or 20 minutes if they are checking luggage. What other flight, including domestic, anywhere, allows such a late check-in?
Ten minutes after turning up at the dedicated counters for JFK-bound passengers and breezing through UK immigration and security, I am at the tarmac level Gate 24. This gate, specially configured for just these flights, masquerades as a mini-lounge. One can indulge in champagne, a cold fish platter, cappuccino, yogurt parfaits, smoothies, high-speed Wi-Fi and outstanding views of the ramp and runways. BA CityFlyer E-Jets and BA’s other Airbus A318, G-EUNA that I flew over on prove to be the stars of the show. G-EUNA pulls in and does an impossibly tight 180 degree turn on the cramped ramp unassisted. Flight crews operating into LCY are clearly very skilled not only for landings and take-offs, but in navigating the small and crowded ramp.
Boarding is called a mere ten minutes before scheduled departure. Instead of taking the bus, we are able to walk about 100 feet to the air-stairs and a quick climb up to BA Airbus A318 G-EUNB. With “Swiss precision” but on a UK airline, the boarding process takes five minutes with engines starting just two minutes after it is completed.
Traveling in a low demand season and mid-week, the cabin is a little less than half-full, with fifteen passengers and five crew. My Club World seat 5J (and 5K) offers a great view of the wing. We immediately begin our trek down the runway and once again the flight crew executes a 180 degree maneuver to line up for take-off. At 10:02AM, just ten minutes after the A318’s CFM56-5B9 engines are spooled up, and our take-off roll commences. With a very light fuel and passenger load, V2 take-off speed comes at 112 knots, we rotate, and the twin CFM’s effortlessly have us airborne, using less than half of the runway.
Just eleven minutes after take-off while still in the climb, the seatbelt sign is extinguished and the in-flight service begins, the first of three we will experience today on our trip to New York. Upon reviewing the menu and imbibing in a Champagne Tattinger Brut Reserve NV, I preemptively loosen my belt again to deal with the coming culinary tsunami. Again, this is not for my enjoyment but my duty to you, my dear reader.
To tide us over, we are served canapés including smoked salmon and trout, prosciutto, and feta cheese complimented with an exotic fruit brochette. This savory, tangy delight is without question the best appetizer I have ever had on an airplane in terms of presentation and taste. I would have asked for seconds, but that would be déclassé and there were still two full meals ahead of us. Additionally, I had run out of belt notches.
The pampering but never cloying crew took our orders for the first meal of the SNN-JFK segment. I suffer from some notable food allergies, so when I asked about the ingredients, the very patient flight attendant produced a photo menu for people with food allergies listing every ingredient of every dish. I had never seen this before.
Quite different from the nighttime Friday flight, many passengers opt to work and decline the iPads. With the office opening up back home, I decided to try the On-Air in-flight connectivity system to check some emails and texts. The emails trickled in before stopping as my phone intermittently lost connection, before regaining it again. This temperamental and expensive service is better than nothing, but is clearly the major weak link in the otherwise nearly flawless service. Given the clientele and advances in connectivity since the service first launched in 2009, BA could afford to upgrade not only the A318 fleet but the rest of the non-connectivity enabled fleet.
At 10:50am we began our descent through rough air into Shannon. The “Baby Bus” A318 handles the chop with surprising aplomb and after exactly 90 minutes we grease the runway for our quick stopover.
Shannon is an airline geeks paradise with numerous types undergoing work or stored at various aircraft maintenance, repair, and overhaul MRO’s at the airport. Lufthansa Technik and Russian airline Transaero both operate MRO’s at Shannon. But with less than 45 minutes on the ground at Shannon, there won’t be much time for plane-spotting or anything else.
Everyone, including the flight crew, disembarks with their belongings during the refueling for the clever and convenient US immigrations and customs pre-clearance. Due to the lack of an international officer and the possibility of timing out if there was a diversion due the duration of the flight, there is a crew change of pilots here.
After just 45 minutes in Ireland, at precisely noon local time, we have re-boarded and are bound for New York for the 7 hour, 5 minute flight. Nearly fully loaded with 19 tons of Jet A fuel, our take-off roll is more than double the time at London City at 38 seconds and V1 doesn’t come until 143 knots. Even nearly fully loaded with fuel, we reached the jet stream optimized cruising altitude of 39,000 feet in just 19 minutes.
Following the obligatory warm towels, the decadent lunch service begins. With BA001 being a long, all-daylight flight, the meal service is an extended affair. We begin with mixed nuts and champagne. This time I opt for Champagne de Castelnau Brut Rose. I am offered a tasting sample before my glass is filled. This small touch contributes to the highly personalized, professionally executed service that is a perfect fit for this routing.
The menu cuisine and presentation are especially designed for London City as well. The prelude to my meal is a fresh seasonal salad topped with a tangy apple balsamic dressing and three bread choices, including pumpkin seed wheat. My carbs meter is now off the charts!
Absolutely stuffed, I declined the deserts and fruit course, holding out for what the High Tea service had in store. The night before I had an amazing dinner at London’s famed Quo Vodis. I am only half-joking when I say that the chefs at flight kitchen at London City could contribute to the Quo.
After the one-hour meal service, the cabin crew passed out chocolates and bottles of water and basically disappeared unless called for until tea. Most passengers were involved in their work or absorbed in a movie, while a few slept. They were probably happy to be not be disturbed. Even with a full load of 32, a regular passenger told me that flight is always very quiet and serene.
We crossed over into the Northern Maine with one hour remaining in the flight. The moment had arrived for the vaunted High Tea Service. A meal unto itself, BA’s version of Afternoon Tea is more a meal service fit for the Ritz, Mayfair, or maybe even Buckingham Palace. A plate of delicate sandwiches featuring roast beef with tartar sauce, wasabi chicken, tuna with sweet corn, and mature cheddar with caramel onion chutney were just exquisite.
These savories were followed up with traditional antipasti prepared with grilled king prawn, prosciutto di Parma, Vitello tonnato, and beetroot with goat’s cheese. What’s afternoon tea without sweets? I sampled one bite each of the homemade plain or lemon and date scones served warm with clotted cream and strawberry preserves, fearing I had gained five pounds just on this flight. There was absolutely no way I could even consider the afternoon tea pastries featuring Dundee cake and flamed lemon meringue tartlet. I have written many trip reports but this one was quickly becoming a restaurant review for a tasting menu.
Source:
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/06/09/long-haul-on-a-short-plane-an-analysis-and-trip-report-part-one/
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/06/11/long-haul-on-a-short-plane-an-analysis-and-trip-report-part-two/
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/06/12/long-haul-on-a-short-plane-an-analysis-and-trip-report-part-three/
http://airwaysnews.com/blog/2014/06/13/long-haul-on-a-short-plane-an-analysis-and-trip-report-part-four/
Feliratkozás:
Bejegyzések (Atom)