|
Post by devonian on Apr 25, 2013 22:16:49 GMT
From what I can discover the Jetairfly 737-700s have CFMI CFM56-7B20 engines rated at 20,600 lbf, i.e. the lowest powered version. Perhaps they could be intending to use their E190s?
|
|
|
Post by tagron on May 8, 2013 21:50:37 GMT
I am surprised that a company like Jetairfly operating a high density seating 737 would have opted for the lowest powered version as I would have thought it would reduce their flexibility in the charter market, though I have found a reference that supports devonian's finding. Of course it can be difficult to get reliable information from the internet unless it is the operator's data, or, as with a British registered aircraft, one can access G-INFO where engine type and MTOW are listed. I don't know the Belgian equivalent, if there is one.
Having said that it looks as though the -7B20 engine variant would be able to operate SEN-PMI/IBZ with a full passenger load but not much further, so perhaps my reservations in my previous post were overstated. As always, access to better quality data would produce a more accurate appraisal.
|
|
|
Post by tagron on Nov 4, 2013 18:55:19 GMT
It appears from the Thomson online brochure that the 2014 programme from SEN is back to one PMI flight a week with Volotea on Saturdays, a similar schedule to this year.
|
|
|
Post by wetlanding on Dec 15, 2013 12:26:30 GMT
It now seems Thomson have rced futher there program at SEN t finish on the 20th September with the last inbound on te 27th September not only that but it is rumoured they have sent out mail telling some holiday makers there flight will not be from SEN can anyone please confirm.
|
|
|
Post by aurigny72 on Dec 15, 2013 18:00:06 GMT
The Thomson Palma flights are still bookable on their website from the 24th May through to October (Saturdays), the letters sent out by Thomson must relate to either the Tuesday Palma or the Ibiza flights which they chopped a couple of months ago.
|
|
|
Post by EGMCfollower on Dec 15, 2013 20:11:24 GMT
From what I can tell (and this needs some explaining by Thomson/SEN management) it should be a shorter season compared to this years PMI flights, and again this will be with Volotea B717s. What I can't understand is why Thomson decided to do a complete u-turn on their expansion plans for a 2nd weekly PMI flight and a new weekly flight to IBZ, and without really giving it enough time to see if it is popular. If people are receiving letters about their holiday being cancelled that would suggest that the public were booking it! I thought most flights this year were full? Can anyone clarify this? They also went to the trouble of advertising it in their brochures and on TV and other media sources. Something smells a bit fishy here! The only reason I can think of is that perhaps Jetairfly needed their aircraft for the summer peak (despite being part of TUI) and as a result Thomson pulled the plug. I can't see it being down to a financial issue as I think Thomson are pretty stable. The only other option I can think of is that they may have postponed the expansion and not cancelled it altogether. If anyone in the know can correct me or solve this puzzle it would be useful!
|
|
|
Post by aurigny72 on Dec 15, 2013 21:01:51 GMT
Well said tws, i to would like to know why Thomson did this u-turn. I flew to Palma in September with Thomson/Volotea and both ways the flights seemed full, i agree also there should be a explaination from Thomson for putting these extra holidays/flights on sale then withdrawing them so suddenly, its not very good P.R. for either Thomsons or the Airport.
|
|
|
Post by tagron on Dec 15, 2013 22:52:10 GMT
In my experience this sort of shenanigan is not uncommon in the package holiday industry. Think also Newmarket Holidays and Balkan Holidays. Then there is the cynical view that the real reason why the main operators offer flights “from your local airport” is to lure customers in and then get them to buy flights on their mainstream operation from LGW or STN where they can use their own fleet, not a subcontract operation.
And is it correct the online brochure specified Jetairfly 738 for the SEN operation ? It might have looked like a brochure error, but suppose at that stage they had not carried out adequate detail planning. The published runway length of 1856m might look adequate at first sight for a 738 operation, but all the declared distances are shorter, and the LDA of 1604m would be seriously restrictive for the 738.
Pure conjecture of course and I doubt we shall ever know the real reason. It ought to be a minor event and would not seem to matter so much except in the context of SEN’s manifest failure to attract new operators in the two years plus since gaining easyJet. Is there an underlying problem here ? Even Manston and Cambridge have had more success.
|
|