Whit'na plane wis yun ?

[stilldellin]

At Sumburgh today for the first time was this Saab 2000 G-LGNO, a sign of things to come.   :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3804/13267593765_20c700da9f_c.jpg

First Landing Saab 2000 G-LGNO IMG_7111 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

[stilldellin]

Another Saab 2000 visiting today was this latest addition to the Eastern Airways fleet G-CIEC :-

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7376/13274430953_03effd0dbb_c.jpg

Saab 2000 G-CIEC IMG_7069 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

[stilldellin]

Nearly forgot to squeeze in our good old Fokker back at Sumburgh today seen here landing on runway 27. ( without the hole ! ) Fokker 50 PH-KXX :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3802/13276428205_db5f206f85_c.jpg

Fokker 50 PH-KXX IMG_7083 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

[Ghostrider]

Yun 2000's ir awful ATP laek....hoop dey dunna bring ATP laek fauts wi dem tuh - shurly no.

[MuckleJoannie]

I just heard the boss of Loganair on Radio Shetland predicting chaos at Sumburgh due to bigger planes and more flights.

[Ghostrider]

^ A bit of scaremongering on his part I suspect, possibly for ulterior motives. Sumburgh is still relatively quiet compared to even the early 90's, and it was already much quieter then compared to the mid 70's.

 

They're not using 60% of the terminal building, and the number of essential staff is a fraction of 90's levels. They have the buildings and infrastructure to cope perfectly well with much, much more traffic than is at present, the only reason that might lead to chaos is if HIAL, NATS etc refuse to open up and staff the additional capacity that does exist. Which would be silly in their part, as they'd be strangulating their own existence, but, "silly" isn't an entirely alien concept to them, so time will tell....

[stilldellin]

I would have thought surely with the bigger aircraft there will actually be less air traffic which can only be a good thing to all concerned. The new Saab 2000 was back today, came in on runway 15 on a good cross wind no problem,albeit lightly loaded. Saab 2000 G-LGNO today :-

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3771/13294904423_b39dc9fb3e_c.jpg

Saab in the Spotlight IMG_7166 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3799/13295172593_9a56497d00_c.jpg

Saab 2000 G-LGNO IMG_7186 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

[stilldellin]

Of interest today was this Icelandic Coast Guard Super Puma TF-SYN in to refuel before journeying onward to Faroe and then presumably on to Iceland . The also haed a peerie teet under da bonnet whin dey wir here !   TF-SYN :-

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7100/13311688303_38235b0273_c.jpg

Super Puma TF-SYN IMG_7197 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

and departing Sumburgh :-

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2855/13311650443_d9ee95fe7a_c.jpg

Super Puma TF-SYN IMG_7222 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

[Ghostrider]

 

I would have thought surely with the bigger aircraft there will actually be less air traffic which can only be a good thing to all concerned.

 

The Loganair boss describing it as being bigger aircraft is being disingenuous with the facts to say the least. The old Viscount was rated for 75 passengers, the Budgie 40-58 and the ATP 64. Its only this last while with them using the 340 rated for only 30, and before it the Flying Shoe Box rated at 36, that gives the impression the 2000 rated at 50-58 is bigger, when in reality we're just returning to the general level of capacity per flight we enjoyed from the 60's to the 90's.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Ghostrider

[Seaflech]

 

 

I would have thought surely with the bigger aircraft there will actually be less air traffic which can only be a good thing to all concerned.

 

The Loganair boss describing it as being bigger aircraft is being disingenuous with the facts to say the least. The old Viscount was rated for 75 passengers, the Budgie 40-58 and the ATP 64. Its only this last while with them using the 340 rated for only 30, and before it the Flying Shoe Box rated at 36, that gives the impression the 2000 rated at 50-58 is bigger, when in reality we're just returning to the general level of capacity per flight we enjoyed from the 60's to the 90's.

 

How can the irrefutable fact that one type of plane is bigger than another be being 'disingenuous with the facts?'  I reckon if you parked a Saab 340 and a Saab 2000 side by side on the apron and asked 100 people to point at the 'bigger' plane, most of them would probably get it right......

Yes other aircraft in ye olde dayse had greater capacity, but surely the number of commercial seats per day is considerably up on the 60s to 90s.  Also with the longer runway of today they will be less restricted in performance limiting weather, meaning less people bumped off because of weight issues.  Many's the time an ATP would have to have left with a lot of its 60 odd seats empty, making it a rather moot point.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Seaflech

[Ghostrider]

^ Nobody is disputing a 2000 is physically larger and has more seats than a 340. The point is the only reason Loganair's boss is able to claim they're putting "larger" planes on the route, is that on Loganair's/Flybe's watch all we've had are planes significantly smaller than during the previous three or so decades on BA's/BEA's watch. If the introduction of the 2000 is a service "improvement" on account of its greater seating capacity, then the equal an opposite argument that during the entirity of Loganair's/Flybe's service provision to date they have been providing an "inferior" service due to reduced flight capacity also applies.

 

If you choose to look at just a snapshot of the present, yes of course the man's statement is technically true, but doing so is to take a very blinkered and short-sighted view. The fact remains, that unless on the speed factor, the 2000 is simply reinstating the capacity per flight that had existed for three decades or so before this bunch took over, and they have failed to provide for around two decades.

 

The number of seats available per any given time period is irrelevant to the type of aircraft plying the routes, whether you have two 2000 flights, three 340 flights or eleven Islander flights you shift roughly the same number of asses on seats. Its simply down to a commercial decision on the part of the airline whether you have larger capacity planes doing fewer flights, or lower capacity planes doing more. Some might argue that larger capacity planes aren't necessarily an improvement given the types of weather conditions that typically leads to Shetland flight cancellations. If a 60 seater has to return to Aberdeen because it cannot get in due to a fog bank or extended snow shower, you have up to 60 very pissed off people, whereas if two 30 seaters double the odds of at least one of them being able to sneak in during a thinner hole in the fog, or a temporary lull in the snow shower, leaving only up to 30 very pissed off people.

 

Fair enough, the 2000 on the longer runway (as long as its there and the North Sea doesn't fully recalim it) *may* lead to a reduction in bumping, but to the best of my recollection, 20 years ago when I worked at the airport, right in the middle of the ATP's heyday on the route, I can recall very little bumping occuring. Simply because at the times of year weather conditions were most likely to dictate such load restrictions, your average flight was very rarely fully booked in the first place. Unless for a few exceptional periods, for the most part, as I seem to recall things unfolding, the odds of a standby passenger being able to fly was infinitely greater than a regular passenger being bumped off a flight due to weather conditions.

 

Bottom line, the Loganair man is trying to milk the 2000 for all they're worth on the "new", which they may be on the route, but certainly aren't in any other way - 20 year old technology and build standards, and the last one built was 15 years ago, and  "bigger, better, faster" tabs. While they may be the latter of those three, they're not the former, we had as big for several decades in the past, and as for "better", I daresay that's going to be personal opinion, which can only be formed after we've had to put up with them for a while.

[stilldellin]

From the Loganair spokesperson re the Saab 2000's " better performance in cross winds " . I would guess that will be the deciding factor as to their  success or not as the case may be. Here at Sumburgh we have seen a fair increase in diverted traffic from Scatsta during the recent south-easterly gales due to cross-winds at Scatsta using these same Saab 2000 aircraft so read from that what you will !

 

A couple of Puma's into Sumburgh today was this recent new liveried Bond EC225 G-REDR :-

Bond Puma G-REDR IMG_7241 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

and departing in a downpour was another Icelandic Coast Guard Puma AS332L1 TF-GNA :-

Icelandic Coast Guard TF-GNA IMG_7286 by Ronnierob, on Flickr

 

apologies for crap picture but had not seen her in Sumburgh before so tocht wirt posting ! 

 

[Ghostrider]

^ From memory the ATP's stood up reasonably well to cross winds, unless maybe flans aff o' Scatness when trying to lift on 27 in a SW gale, but that never happened....

 

Of course, the 2000 may well be significantly better, but only time will tell....they certainly don't have zero windage though.

[JustMe]

^ From memory the ATP's stood up reasonably well to cross winds, unless maybe flans aff o' Scatness when trying to lift on 27 in a SW gale, but that never happened....

 

Of course, the 2000 may well be significantly better, but only time will tell....they certainly don't have zero windage though.

Except for one that scraped its wing on the runway on take off.  Maybe December 1991.  Got into the air but diverted to a nice long runway for landing.

[shetlandpeat]

I spent several journeys waiting for the ATP to be repaired or replaced when I flew up, I cannot see how you can compare the two as they were built to differing standards. As the ATP was "newer" when it flew to Shetland, is was lacking in quality. With addition to the increased speed, the good thing also is the lower fares.