Great Western Coffee Shop

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52084003

They've been flying very little for at least a week.

A few rescue flights to the Med and Canaries over the weekend was all I saw.

I drove my van past Bristol Airport yesterday: the car parks were deserted, and the aircraft aprons were gridlocked. It was rather spooky, seeing the opposite of what is normal - and the silence was also incredible.  ::)

No big surprise in the end. The only similar occurrences happened in the aftermath of 9/11 on 11/9/2001, and following the antics of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010, although not on such a global scale, and for periods of weeks rather than months. There are still flights in the air, including my house guests en route to Kuala Lumpur (so I can leave my bedroom!!), but no bucket and spade work. Loganair has a number of flights that can still be regarded as essential, but has grounded half of its fleet.

easyJet has said it will pay its staff 80% of their wages, and quite a few have volunteered to help in the NHS, as have many other people. Maintenance staff can give everything a thorough overhaul, but there is no point in bringing major services forward by much, given how expensive they are. The little things that are not safety critical or time limited will get done, I would imagine. There will need to be engine runs periodically to keep the engines in shape. Pilots will have to stay current, which at the legal minimum means three take-offs and landings as sole manipulator of the controls within the previous 90 days to be able to carry passengers. There will already be queues at simulators.

It will be interesting to see how this all ends. My guess is that airlines will largely survive, the exception being the smaller ones, but not Loganair, who will be given help if they need it. Government will relax some of the charges such as air passenger duty and air traffic control, debts will be rescheduled for them and for airports. Heathrow's third runway might just be quietly forgotten about without the Supreme Court appeal, although I doubt it. My guess is that its foreign owners will be pleased with a delay of considerable length, to give time for business to pick up again. It will take years for sales of Toblerone to recover.

easyJet could ask the government for direct help, but probably won't. 140 aircraft of its fleet were transferred to easyJet Europe GmbH based in Austria after the EU referendum, giving it a choice of governments to ask, as well as the threat of cutting routes if help is not forthcoming. The second biggest airline in terms of UK passenger numbers is our Spanish owned national flag carrier airline, BA, which will probably be the case that decides the financial rules. Ryanair is Ireland's problem. BAe, Rolls Royce, GKN, Dowty and many more will suffer, which will delight environmental activists who don't rely on a wage from them, their supply chain or the cafes or sandwich shops close by. Pension funds, banks, insurance companies and the like will be watching anxiously, as will their pensioners, members and customers. Most worried may be the Chancellor, although he may relish the opportunity to be the fiscal hero, with a ready-written excuse if it all goes north.

I am confident of a return to normality, albeit not a normal normality, in due course. So much so that I have just squandered slightly over £100 of my hard-earned (or ill-gotten) cash on a pair of return tickets to the Canary Islands next January. I am eager to show confidence in not only our economy, but that of the harder-hit corners of the EU, and prefer sitting by a pool in shorts with an improving book in one hand (and an even more improving cold beer in the other) to chasing the garden furniture through neighbouring fields in freezing rain. If I am offered vouchers by the airline, I shall decline, knowing that a voucher for a defunct airline is worth a lot less than a booking. I paid by credit card just in case, and £100 isn't a huge punt.

I think there's going to be a "new normal" in the commercial aviation sector.

I hear from a colleague who currently works closely with London's second airport that they are expecting/preparing for a 20% downwards "adjustment" in the amount that we fly when this is all over.

I agree that Loganair should be supported. Their core is "lifeline" routes from around the Scottish mainland to the Highlands and Islands, but they had also started to step in to cover some key routes around the rest of the UK when Flybe ceased operations (they obviously had a plan baking, which they announced the very next day). For them to go aswell would be a disaster for domestic connectivity, and regional airports like Southampton, Cardiff, Newquay, Belfast City and Exeter.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52103171

A sensible idea - transfer what flights are left to Heathrow, and use Gatwick for storage. It will be fun when this ends - moving a 747 a distance of 40 miles isn't quite so easy as shifting a train.

There was an instance recently of a BA 747 moving from Cardiff Airport to St Athan Airfield, a distance of under 4 miles.  One way only for the frame I'm afraid, and the pilot did loop around a bit - maybe to burn off a bit of fuel or maybe to give the ol' girl one last blast.

I expect his taxi back was faster.

https://ukaviation.news/could-this-be-the-shortest-747-flight-in-history/

When I taught in Dorchester one of the ex-pupils, by then a Naval Helicopter Pilot, attended the annual Combined Cadet Force day by landing his Wessex helicopter on the school playing fields and later taking off to land again at the Rugby Club a short distance away!

Reminds me of an experience that did not reflect well on Delta Airlines. My wife and I went on an organised package holiday to Kentucky back in 2004, the trip being to see the bloodstock establishments of that state, and interest of my wife's (I bunked off, and hired a car to go birding some days!). Delta provided the flights - to Cincinnati, then onwards after a change of plane to Lexington. This last leg was only about 40 miles. Transport for the trip to the various establishments being visited, and to and from the hotel, was on a hired coach. We discovered from chatting to the driver that he drove out from Cincinnati every day to pick up the tour group.

On our departure, he duly drove us to the airport. As international passengers, and a party of 40 odd to boot, we had to arrive a little earlier than the one hour check in time. So our driver would have been safely back in his depot well before we took off.

Unfortunately Delta had indulged in that terrible airline practice of overbooking the Lexington-Cincinnati flight, and duly tried "bumping" some of our party, upsetting some of the more elderly tour members in the process. Had Delta simply bused us to Cincinnati Airport (its full name - Cincinnati North Kentucky International tells you it's on the Kentucky side of the Ohio River - in fact not far off Highway 75 to Lexington!), we would have been saved this unnecessary hassle - and could have left the hotel later, avoiding a further wait for our connecting flight back home. And of course a transfer bus service instead of this ridiculous air route would have saved a lot of unnecessary emissions.

I once had a flight all to myself. I landed at Houston International, and needed to go the SW of the city. Speaking to the desk clerk, he convinced me that a flight to Sugarland, a small commuter airport in that area was the quickest and cheapest way. As I'd flown in, he changed my original ticket for another and I paid very little for this flight. However when I got on the plane, I was the only one travelling, (there were the two pilots of course) and I got the impression that they wouldn't have made the flight if I hadn't been booked on it. I suspect they regretted encouraging me to use that route! but its probably what a lot of flights are like these days.

Does the "one way only" refer specifically to this plane for the reasons given in the article, or is there some general reason why a short flight in a large aircraft is harmful to it?

There is a segment in 'flying heavy metal' on Discovery with Iron Maiden's Bruce Dickinson, where they are doing training landings and takeofffs at Cardiff I think, in a 747, so no the aircraft has no priblem with short flight, unless you load up with enough fuel to cross the atlantic, and then dont, as the aicraft may break if you try and land with too much fuel.

What you describe is an overweight landing (ie, above Max Landing Weight), and will normally only be carried out in a dire emergency (eg, uncontrollable fire, airframe damage causing control issues etc). This is why most commercial aircraft will hold (even with engine/s shut down) to either burn or dump fuel following an issue, to get below MLW before making an approach.

Most widebody jets have the ability to "dump" and I've been a passenger when it's been done. In "Air Traffic" speak it's known as "adjusting gross weight" (a rather PC term for what it actually is), but in my case 40 tonnes of JetA1 was sprayed out of pipes in the wing trailing edges as we flew in circles over open water.

For the reasons in the article. St Athan is where planes go to be recycled, although this particular one seems to have a bit of a future for training of some sort of other before becoming razor blades.

By the way, looking at the track of the plane it's clear the circuitous route was needed because of the runway alignments and wind direction, but that wouldn't have been as interesting.

Reminds me of my return flight from a holiday in Limassol, Cyprus in July 2009. Loadings must have been a bit light because the two flights from Larnaca to Bournemouth and Gatwick that day were amalgamated into one calling at Bournemouth first then Gatwick. I remember there being quite a wait between landing and taking off again.

Checking distances, as the crow flies it's about 76 miles but the flight miles would have been longer.

Looks about right - it took off on runway 12 from Cardiff and landed on 08 at St Athan, so I guess there was an easterly-ish wind that day. I'm sure the pilot could have done a tailwind take-off from Cardiff with no passengers and presumably only the legal minimum fuel, but would have to have reached a reasonable height, turned left 40°, begun a descent and landed safely, all within 3 nautical miles. It would have been dangerous to try, and probably much more interesting from a spectator point of view, so why not have a nice last ride out, climb to 3000 feet, see the sights, then set up a nice stable approach for a normal easy landing. Had there been a westerly wind that day, I would imagine that the pilot would have turned left after departure, probably over St Athan, come back over the Bristol Channel to line up from west of Barry.

As an aside, many old aircraft go to Kemble to be recycled, a rather profitable addition to the Cotswold economy. The first time I flew to Kemble was only the second time I had landed away from Filton, with its 2467m x 91m runway. Kemble's runway is 45m wide, and looked pretty thin from a couple of miles out. My nerves eased as we got closer to the ground, and I felt a smug sense of achievement at having squeezed into such a narrow gap. Until I noticed the three 747s parked up.

I went to Brooklands museum some years ago, was told the BAC 1-11 was flowen in! now that isnt even a real runway.

So was the VC10!

Coincidentally, this was being discussed within this thread on PPRuNe only yesterday https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/631107-vc10-quickie.html (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/631107-vc10-quickie.html) by the guy who flew it in!

The VC10 there was a civilian one, I think owned by the Sultan of Oman before its retirement. My son-in-law was working on the RAF VC10s at the time they left service, and my daughter (his wife) was then working in the MoD PR office at Brize. She went on the last operational flight in September 2013 (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/final-flight-of-the-vc10) before they retired aged 47. There is one at Dunsfold, which my SiL told me  wasn't the intended final rusting place, which I think was going to be Cosford. The pilots scheduled to fly it there took a trip in something smaller first, though, and decided the runway was too short to make it safely, so Dunsford and Bruntingthorpe it had to be. Another was stripped of its wings (and dignity) for a road trip to Cosford. The rest have been broken up, with bits in various museums.

The VC10's transatlantic speed record, set in 1979, was finally broken in February this year. The RAF tankers, and large passenger transport aircraft, were replaced by the Airtanker Voyagers, based on the A330. They were described by some sections of the press as an expensive white elephant on the basis that we could have managed with 50 year old aircraft, patched up before and after every flight, and perpetually hungry and thirsty, although a joy to fly. The MoD and military see the Voyager as a brilliant aircraft, vastly superior to the ones that preceded them in every role. My son-in-law, currently mending them in the Falklands, says that they are a great leap forward, and so much easier to service than the VC10. I've had a ride on one, including in the cockpit, and tend to agree.

I've had a few flights as sole passenger. One return trip Stansted to Manchester, returning next afternoon, on Suckling Airways. Up in the morning with Sue (I think) as sole cabin crew. Greeted at the top of the stairs next afternoon with a big smile by whoever was on duty, I said " You never know - I may be the passenger from hell". She retorted " No you're not. I saw Sue this morning who said you were OK".

Another time, a Sunday flight from Alderney to Bournemouth as a last minute sub-load passenger - the only one. Got to Bournemouth and, not expecting me, the sole customs officer had gone off duty. I had to wait for an officer to drive down from Southampton to wave me through. But he did give me a lift back to Southampton where my car was parked.

The Voyager is indeed a impressive aircraft, way more capable than the elderly types it replaced.

However, it would be even more capable if it had also been equipped with a refuelling boom (as well as hose and drogue refuelling) as the Australian version of the A330MRTT has. The Aussie's call it the KC-30 but it's the same aircraft.

As is stands, the RAF have several aircraft, including the Boeing E-3 AWACS (and it's expected replacement), the C-17 and the new P-8 Poseidon Maritime Patrol Aircraft (based on the Boeing 737-800 airliner) that can't be air-to-air refuelled by the Voyager due to this limitation.

Interoperability (the military love that word!), especially with the Americans, would have been greatly enhanced. In fact, it is often said that the A330MRTT won a competition to the be USAF's next tanker/transport, but politics got in the way resulting in the procurement of the Boeing 767-based Pegasus, which is having a very problemmatic, late and expensive entry into service.

The boom would have been a seldom-used add-on, as the RAF has no top-loaders. As you will be aware, the A330 and A340 share a wing, with the latter having 4 engines, leaving two pylons to mount the refuelling pods. Three of the aircraft have been leased to civilian airlines, which wouldn't be easy with the boom fittings. It seemed to do alright, though, and there were plenty of customers:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49725152236_ecacdfc247_c.jpg)

I haven't been as close to a Typhoon before or since, not even on the ground:

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49725464642_554dce37d8_c.jpg)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49725472567_266a39e9a1_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2iL53zV)

Some of the types I mentioned are top-loaders for sure, for example the C17 and the new P-8.

Take your point though that having the boom would add complexity to the lease-outs (presumably it would have to be removed).

As far as I know the leased-out aircraft have all been returned, which in the current environment is not surprising.
3 were due to be with Jet2 this Summer and I doubt that will happen now.

It's quiet in the sky today again. It looks as if Google Earth are taking advantage to get some new pictures. Otherwise, a few military - a Merlin passed nearby a few minutes ago - around my way.

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49752044523_584017a5fb_c.jpg)

I used the same site (ADS-B Exchange) to "watch" a Voyager tanking a couple of Typhoons off the north Cornwall coast this morning.

The Google Earth plane (if that's what it was) passed over my house after lunch at Exeter airport by the look of it. I shall have to look to see if we were on it, eating cake in the garden.

Edit - I am told elsewhere that it is Ordnance Survey. Back home at East Midlands Airport. Nice work if you can get it.

The only slight problem is that the US Navy and the US Air Force don't seem to have heard of "Interoperability" either .....................  The US Navy uses mainly the drogue system while the US Air Force uses the boom. That is why during the Gulf War much of the RAF's tanker fleet was kept busy refuelling US Navy aircraft operating from their carriers in the Gulf.

The A330 DID win the competition for the next US tanker aircraft, but Boeing complained and the spec for the new aircraft was re-written (around the 767) - the only thing that the new spec didn't say was that the word "Boeing" had to appear on the new aircraft !!

Drop in flights - from the BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52319575) - note these are March graphs - so nearly 3 weeks behind. Also note that lots of freight flights running.

(http://www.wellho.net/pix/flightdropmarch.jpg)

Looking in the South West the other day - single passenger flight in and out of Bristol for a whole 24 hours - RyanAir from and to Dublin.   Same for Gatwick.  Southampton showing two flights in a day - in and out from each of Jersey and Guernsey.  Nothing at Newquay or Exeter.

There was a flight in the small hours of this morning that woke me up. It must have been either landing at or taking off from Bristol but I've no idea where it was going/from.

East Midlands Airport is now the 10th busiest airport in Europe, Heathrow 2nd, Gatwick has dropped out of the Top 40.

From The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/east-midlands-airport-eurocontrol-cancelled-cargo-passenger-manchester-heathrow-stansted-a9460551.html) on Saturday 11th April.

The last departure last night was Ryanair to Dublin, at 2212. That was all that was shown until the same flight tonight. there may be the occasional private flight. They usually happen before midnight, though. It wasn't Sir James so far as I can tell.


There are a number of things that can affect aircraft turnaround. One is refuelling - I doubt you would do that for a short hop. The pilot would have uplifted enough for both take-offs and flights. Passenger unloading and loading is another, but presumably that would be one-way traffic at Bournemouth, with the the cases for the first drop by the door of the cargo hold, separate from the Gatwick stuff.

Another consideration that isn't usually noticed, but is very much on the mind of the pilot,  is brake cooling. They get pretty hot on landing, with 400°C not being unusual. They have to be down to 100°C to 150°C before starting to taxy depending on the type, to make sure that they work efficiently in the event of a rejected take-off. Usually, the normal 40 minute turnaround for an A320 or B737 is enough, particularly on a decent length runway like Bournemouth with a light load on a nice day, when the autobraking would have been set to low, but it does mean you can't land, chuck out the pax, and take off straight away. Airbus, and I assume others, have a temperate gauge and a countdown on the control panel to time needed to brakes being usable again, There are fans, but there are reasons why these are not often used, and they don't speed it up much in any case. And there is always the need to get a slot through all the traffic then into Gatwick - you wouldn't want to take of for a 70 nm flight and have to stack for an hour.

This one perhaps ???       Just come across the photo below when sorting out a load of old stuff; taken at Zurich 4 years ago, forgotten that I had it.  Seems to be attracting a lot of attention - lots of "goofers" on the far side of the aircraft.

(https://i.ibb.co/RCvvNTx/160206-2539.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NLVVr28)

Iron Maiden have a huge global following as a band, and this crossed over into aviation geekery with Bruce's flying exploits, flying the line as a 757 pilot for Astreaus, and using one of them (adorned similarly to the 747) for previous world tours (I remember seeing it parked at Auckland when there on hols in 2009), not to mention the whole "Flying Heavy Metal" thing.

Going back a few years 747's were used for charters to Orlando from Cardiff on a regular basis, so it's more than useful for 747 ops.

The "Iron Maiden" jumbo was operated by an Icelandic operator, Air Atlanta, who are specialists at what's known as ACMI (Aircraft, Crew, Maintenance and Insurance) leases. Prior to that, it flew for Air France for about 20 years. 

That parrticular Boeing 747-428 was delivered to Air France on 31 March 2003 after rolling off the production line less than 4 weeks earlier. That makes it reasonably young for a Jumbo. It's currently in storage on lease to Saudi Airlines, but its future will be interesting to watch. Four-engined aircraft are going out of favour, being usurped by the 787 and A350 and so on.