| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Aseem
Member
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2841
Location: YYZ
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 4:42 am Post subject: Aviation Ministry caps flight movement from Delhi, Mumbai |
 |
|
| TimesofIndia wrote: | Aviation Ministry caps flight movement from Delhi, Mumbai
"No new flights have been cleared from Delhi and Mumbai airports in the summer schedule," according to an official release here.
The two metro airports, which are being upgraded, have been facing severe congestion leading to aircraft spending several minutes waiting to take-off or land.
Hourly movements at Delhi airport has been frozen at 35 during simultaneous use of runway and 30 during single runway operation, while hourly movement at Mumbai airport has been frozen at 30, it said.
The dual runway operation period at Delhi has been extended from nine to ten hours. It would now be between 0800 hrs and 1200 hrs in the morning and between 1600 hrs to 2200 hrs in the evening.
Both Delhi International Airport Ltd as well as Mumbai International Airport Ltd were being advised to expedite commissioning of more rapid exit taxiways in their respective airports, the release said.
The clearance delivery system has been introduced for departing aircraft to complete pre-flight checks before entering runway and standby for immediate take-off when cleared, it said.
The Airports Authority of India has ordered that a departing aircraft would be permitted to enter beginning of an active runway and ordered for take-off after an incoming aircraft has confirmed vacating the runway after landing in the event of operation of a single runway case. |
rgds
VT-ASJ
_________________
[url=http://openflights.org/user/aseemsjohri]
 [/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
malQ
Member
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 713
Location: Delhi, India
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This is not very intelligent, in my opinion, the airlines could have been asked/told to consolidate on high density route pairs. And if they had to tighten things, then the non-scheduled private operations could have been scaled down instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aseem
Member
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2841
Location: YYZ
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
one positive fall out could be the use of wide-bodies on these routes...
_________________
[url=http://openflights.org/user/aseemsjohri]
[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
COUGAR
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 986
Location: Bangalore
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
HIGHLY OBJECTIONABLE! Pee Pee deserves to be dragged out and whipped in public for allowing this kind of policy. What kind of minister is this?
This is a protectionist move that encourages cartelisation on the route and discourages new competition.
Existng players can now be confident that no new capacity will be added on this sector. In the long run this kind of policy encourages a stagnation of the market and comes in the way of a pure free market.
I am all fo ra move to decongest the ariways. But this is no way to go about it.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
<B>Live to Ride - Ride to Live</B>
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaysit
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 4346
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with using wide-bodied jets on domestic routes is that most wide-bodied jets are optimized for long haul routes. Short to medium range wide-bodies like the A300s just don't exist any more, and the 737 and A320 families are just so much cheaper to purchase and operate.
The absurdity of keeping CSIA as Mumbai's airport for the foreseeable future hits home. Eventually, Mumbai will lose its preeminence as India's major financial and economic hub. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tayaramecanici
Member
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aseem wrote: | | one positive fall out could be the use of wide-bodies on these routes... |
This is definately a possibility but there aren't any WB available on the lease market at the moment (EU - US OS too is creating a strong demand for twin WBs) and wet-lease is cost prohibitive. AI has a few A310 that can be deployed under IC Flt number after the merged entity comes into being (or has it already ?), apart from them 2 others would definately benefit.
KINGFISHER, If MoCA do not allow IT to operate intl Mallya atleast will be able to exploit his widebody on this high demand route to cream the yields. As long as he manages above average yields on the A330 RSK Mallaya won't complain, Paisa aah raha hai na, additionally crew also will be trained for rapid deployment once the regulation turns favourable and the fleet has increased.
Apart from Mallya obviously NG will benefit from this rule by
1. Deploying all of the SAHARA single config B738 on this route and monopolise the growing traffic.
2. He can also deploy his WB on this route for his crew training until they are comfortable doing the VLH routes and he has managed to get convenient slots at the various dest he plans to fly to. Believe he is going to add a significant number of WB till next year end.
This arbitary rule has a hidden agenda like most such rules. Another beneficiary could be the RELIANCE SEZ, they allegedly plan to build a Airport as part of their SEZ. This could divert the discussion for a immediate decision on the future of BOM and the need to sustain growth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aseem
Member
Joined: 15 Dec 2006
Posts: 2841
Location: YYZ
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
if you read carefully it is only a temp fixture..so, what's wrong with the idea so long as it is temporary and construction of taxiway is expediated.....I am sure safety would be one of the issues in their mind when they articulated the policy..
_________________
[url=http://openflights.org/user/aseemsjohri]
[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthpilot
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2325
Location: BLR, DXB
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaysit wrote: | The problem with using wide-bodied jets on domestic routes is that most wide-bodied jets are optimized for long haul routes. Short to medium range wide-bodies like the A300s just don't exist any more, and the 737 and A320 families are just so much cheaper to purchase and operate.
|
I disagree; if the demand is there then wide bodies are the way to go. I believe this has been more or less proven in the developed countries which have huge volumes of traffic. Northwest and most other airlines flew DC10s and Lockheed tristars, and that was in the 60s! Now they fly 767s, a330s and 777s on longish domestic/high capacity routes. For a 2-3 hour flight, with increased demand and cargo the industry will certainly move towards larger aircrafts.
_________________
eP007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sammyk
Member
Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 2719
Location: Austin, TX
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stealthpilot wrote: |
I disagree; if the demand is there then wide bodies are the way to go. I believe this has been more or less proven in the developed countries which have huge volumes of traffic. Northwest and most other airlines flew DC10s and Lockheed tristars, and that was in the 60s! Now they fly 767s, a330s and 777s on longish domestic/high capacity routes. For a 2-3 hour flight, with increased demand and cargo the industry will certainly move towards larger aircrafts. |
In the 60s there was a lot less competition and a widebody could be somewhat justified and the smaller aircraft didn't always have the range like they do today.
Nowadays domestic US widebody service is usually just a repositioning flight for a later international flight. No doubt there are some exceptions but domestic widebody service in the US is not very common. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tayaramecanici
Member
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 22, 2007 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Aseem wrote: | | if you read carefully it is only a temp fixture..so, what's wrong with the idea so long as it is temporary and construction of taxiway is expediated.....I am sure safety would be one of the issues in their mind when they articulated the policy.. |
How long is temperary, has he defined the period and what are the reasons that have caused this decision, is there a plan to fix these reasons and a road map with definate timescales ? Nah.
Had SAFETY been an issue you would have seen the work on BOM2 half way thru by now. PP had the projections as soon as he came into power. Why don't they route all the Turbo-props and small GAs to Juhu if they are really concerned about SAFETY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthpilot
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2325
Location: BLR, DXB
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sammyk wrote: |
In the 60s there was a lot less competition and a widebody could be somewhat justified and the smaller aircraft didn't always have the range like they do today.
Nowadays domestic US widebody service is usually just a repositioning flight for a later international flight. No doubt there are some exceptions but domestic widebody service in the US is not very common. |
I understand that domestic flights are not usually wide bodies, but they are used on the busy routes. As you said, some long flights like Honolulu-New York have to be flown by them because of the distance.
What I meant was on certain (high density) sectors like BOM-DEL, DEL-BLR etc there is scope for wide body usage in the future.
Im not implying that smaller airports have them, but the busy (potentially slot restricted airports) will eventually need aircrafts larger than the 320.
_________________
eP007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tayaramecanici
Member
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What I meant was on certain (high density) sectors like BOM-DEL, DEL-BLR etc there is scope for wide body usage in the future.
Im not implying that smaller airports have them, but the busy (potentially slot restricted airports) will eventually need aircrafts larger than the 320. |
You hit the bullseye by mentioning SLOT RESTRICTED airports.
In the case of this Ruling any school kid can work out that if there is a restriction on further flts from these 2 airports any airline/s with SLOTs in them suddenly become lucrative. Go back a week to the time JET decides to buy S2 there was no restriction hence most analyst predicted the purchase price as very high now with the SLOT restriction 9W have access to max number of gates and SLOTs at the 2 Metros. These can be sold to any foreign airline or leased for a period apart from using it for its own use. If 9W approach a investor under these conditions they cannot ignore 9Ws distinct advantage.............where is TEHELKA? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nimish
Member
Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9757
Location: Bangalore, India
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tayaramecanici wrote: | | These can be sold to any foreign airline or leased for a period apart from using it for its own use. If 9W approach a investor under these conditions they cannot ignore 9Ws distinct advantage.............where is TEHELKA? |
I don't know if slots at Indian airports can be sold or leased. AFAIK they can only be transferred in case of a change in ownership, but I don't think 9W can now sell a few slots at BOM/DEL to the highest bidder. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blrsea
Member
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I remember Mallya saying that they will deploy A321s on the BOM-DEL sector as they can carry more passengers. IC too has A321s on order. SpiceJet has ordered B737-900ER which can seat around 215 passengers, and might deploy them on the DEL-BOM sector too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VABBy
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 823
Location: DEL
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Naa why nt lease 767,s and deploy them on these slot restricted routes...
_________________
Expeditors- You'd be surprised how far we will go for you www.expeditors.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
COUGAR
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 986
Location: Bangalore
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KF is already operating the 321 on this route: although in a premium config with 32 J seats. Majority of 9W flights on this route are also 739's with their only 2 739's dedicated to operating turnarounds on this sector. But again in a premium config with 32 J seats.
IC could deploy an A300. with IC being forced to downsize on the SIN routes from the AB3 to A320, there is one spare AB3 available.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
<B>Live to Ride - Ride to Live</B>
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jaysit
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 4346
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stealthpilot wrote: | | Jaysit wrote: | The problem with using wide-bodied jets on domestic routes is that most wide-bodied jets are optimized for long haul routes. Short to medium range wide-bodies like the A300s just don't exist any more, and the 737 and A320 families are just so much cheaper to purchase and operate.
|
I disagree; if the demand is there then wide bodies are the way to go. I believe this has been more or less proven in the developed countries which have huge volumes of traffic. Northwest and most other airlines flew DC10s and Lockheed tristars, and that was in the 60s! Now they fly 767s, a330s and 777s on longish domestic/high capacity routes. For a 2-3 hour flight, with increased demand and cargo the industry will certainly move towards larger aircrafts. |
Where in the US and Europe are 777s, 767s and A330s flown on domestic routes?
With the exception of JFK-LAX or JFK-SFO, routes that are flown primarily with 757-200s and with a couple of 762s daily, there are barely any wide-bodied services left in the continental US. UA fly domestic 777s on their Hawaii runs from ORD, and some transcontinental sectors see 777s which are continuing a transatlantic run. If I want to fly to LAX or SFO from IAD (a UA hub), my choices are usually A320s or 757s.
Other than that, the routes that used to be flown with D10s and Tristars are primarily flown with 757s and A320s operating at higher frequencies than in the old days.
However, I believe that India could do with employing A321s and 739s on trunk sectors. Plus, routes like BOM-DEL could even be served with Jets international A332s and AI's 777s. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_380
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | IC could deploy an A300. with IC being forced to downsize on the SIN routes from the AB3 to A320, there is one spare AB3 available. |
That aircraft might be deployed in the BOM-SHJ or BOM-DXB route, else by may the aircraft should start with an early morning flight BOM-DEL-BOM, and i dunno wht will it do the rest of the day.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
COUGAR
Member
Joined: 01 Jan 2007
Posts: 986
Location: Bangalore
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One of the AB3's is already doing BOM-GOI-CCJ-SHJ and vv.
The other could be deployed on turnaround BOM-DEL routing, with the 12 o clock ex-DEL doing DEL-BOM-GOI and vv. This could mean freeing up upto 5 A320 which can be used elsewhere! And imagine the upgradation in capacity: 3 A320 flights shifting to AB3 means 600 additional seats on the sector.
_________________
http://www.cougar-rides.com
<B>Live to Ride - Ride to Live</B>
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tayaramecanici
Member
Joined: 03 Jan 2007
Posts: 648
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Nimish wrote: | | but I don't think 9W can now sell a few slots at BOM/DEL to the highest bidder. |
Well now that the oppurtunity has arisen we shall see if there is any change in the policy, obviously there has got to be contingency plans if airlines wish to start or increase flts from BOM-DEL. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aarbee
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 328
Location: WAS/AMD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaysit wrote: |
Where in the US and Europe are 777s, 767s and A330s flown on domestic routes?
With the exception of JFK-LAX or JFK-SFO, routes that are flown primarily with 757-200s and with a couple of 762s daily, there are barely any wide-bodied services left in the continental US. UA fly domestic 777s on their Hawaii runs from ORD, and some transcontinental sectors see 777s which are continuing a transatlantic run. If I want to fly to LAX or SFO from IAD (a UA hub), my choices are usually A320s or 757s.
Other than that, the routes that used to be flown with D10s and Tristars are primarily flown with 757s and A320s operating at higher frequencies than in the old days.
However, I believe that India could do with employing A321s and 739s on trunk sectors. Plus, routes like BOM-DEL could even be served with Jets international A332s and AI's 777s. |
Umm! Wide bodies are pretty common on some of the routes in US.
E.g. ATL-MCO 8x daily 767s including 3 -400ER. Couple of years back there were also 2X with 777s.
IAD-ORD 3-4X 767
SFO-IAD has 2X 777 and 1X 767
so on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthpilot
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2325
Location: BLR, DXB
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 3:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaysit wrote: |
Where in the US and Europe are 777s, 767s and A330s flown on domestic routes?
|
Airlines do schedule 767s on domestic routes. Sometimes even 777 (not very common though). You asked about the 330, I thought NW flew them but I can’t find any info so sorry about that statement.
(if you really want to dig deep, NRT and other tight Japanese airports.... well... we all know about the 744D)
I am not implying that most domestic routes are served by larger aircrafts, but the busy ones can sustain them and in the future, it will be better off if the small aircraft are replaced by larger capacity ones.
_________________
eP007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aarbee
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 328
Location: WAS/AMD
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stealthpilot wrote: |
You asked about the 330, I thought NW flew them but I can’t find any info so sorry about that statement.
|
I think NW is spread out with 330 pretty thin.
Among NW, UA, DL, AA - NW has the least Wide bodies and some of them are based in Japan.
I was pretty surprised at the wide body composition of USAirways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stealthpilot
Member
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2325
Location: BLR, DXB
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| aarbee wrote: |
I was pretty surprised at the wide body composition of USAirways. |
Off topic, do you think US Airways will get the a345?
_________________
eP007 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
