Yet another aviation thread.

Quote: Pacomartin

The important thing is that the plane took off from London City airport (opened 1987) that has only a 5000' runway.

Yes. Not much in the way of vehicular traffic or long lines. Short trip from/to hotels.

Quote: Fleastiff

Yes. Not much in the way of vehicular traffic or long lines. Short trip from/to hotels.

British Airways at the start of winter 2016/17 schedule is reducing service on London City – New York JFK route, which sees service reduction from 11 to 6 weekly.
BA operates Airbus A318 aircraft on this route, westbound service via Shannon.

BA002 JFK1850 – 0655+1LCY x6

BA001 LCY0945 – 1105SNN1155 – 1430JFK x567 (50 minute layover)
BA001 LCY1215 – 1335SNN1455 – 1730JFK 5 (70 minute layover)
BA001 LCY1235 – 1355SNN1445 – 1730JFK 7 (50 minute layover)

So if the CS100 can do the trip without the technical stop in Shannon Airport for refueling, it should be a lot more popular.



London City Airport is right downtown compared to other four London airports

Even if they make this trip a 'critical baggage' flight, it would be popular. By Critical Baggage, I mean ultra strict baggage limitations to keep weight down and fuel loads sufficient for nonstop flight. Tell businessmen: one laptop, one attache case and thats it. Fine. Businessmen don't need a suitcase full of options.They just need fast and simple transportation.

Kind of catching up.

I like the C series by Bombardier, but having a "regional jet" do long-haul transatlantic flights, is a very strong paradigm shift in air travel.

With SSTs, the big deal is there was only one first-generation model without follow-up, and this one was used in very limited routes. I've said before to imagine if the Comet had been the only jet liner in 40 years, and only two airlines had operated it in small numbers, plane travel today would be vastly different.

Given the gap in years and such, Boom ought to be seen as a first-generation SST, or at most a first-generation follow-up. If it succeeds, it will spawn first imitators and then, finally, a true second-generation SST.

It would be a mistake, this time around, to largely confine it to transatlantic routes.

The current flight BA001 certainly is designed for business. The equipment is an A319 (nicknamed "baby bus") and the flight leaves at 7PM and loads you up with 32 lie flat beds. You land at 7AM (five time zones) and you are three miles from the main business center pictured above. You can even dine at Kennedy Airport if you don't want anything to interfere with your seven hours on the plane.

The CS100 also has transatlantic range from London City to New York, in all-business-class configuration with around 40 passengers . Bombardier developed a special control law for the fly-by-wire CS100 for the 5.5-degree approach to LCY, which compares with the standard 3 degrees. This control law is pilot-selectable and commands lower engine thrust, increased spoiler deployment and a special flap setting.

The articles are not specific, but it sounds as if there is more capability on the westbound leg where the plane is battling the trade winds so that it is not necessary to stop in Ireland to refuel. In addition to the trade winds, you are taking off from JFK with a full length runway, whereas LCY has only a 5000' runway.

Right now BA002 takes 8.5 to 9 hours with the stop in Ireland, but you pre-clear US customs in Shannon Airport.

Quote: Fleastiff

Even if they make this trip a 'critical baggage' flight, it would be popular. By Critical Baggage, I mean ultra strict baggage limitations to keep weight down and fuel loads sufficient for nonstop flight. Tell businessmen: one laptop, one attache case and that's it. Fine. Businessmen don't need a suitcase full of options.They just need fast and simple transportation.

Certainly frequent flyers probably can arrange to have a clean suit and shirts in London even if they are going directly into the office. The other direction would probably is easier, because the 5 time zones means that you are unlikely to go right from the airport to the office, but probably to a hotel.

Quote: Pacomartin

Right now BA002 takes 8.5 to 9 hours with the stop in Ireland, but you pre-clear US customs in Shannon Airport..

I wonder what will be more popular: non-stop, or clearing immigration en-route.

I've never taken more than a minute to clear US customs. Immigration, though, can quite an ordeal. In Vegas I've been stuck in line for as much as 45 minutes. Since then I seat as far forward as possible, and fairly rush out and run towards immigration.

By far the worst was at Orlando in 1991, where the line took over an hour.

The bright spot, if you can call ti that, of such a long wait, is that when you finally arrive at the baggage carousel, your bags are off to the side and you collect them quickly.

Quote: Nareed

I wonder what will be more popular: non-stop, or clearing immigration en-route.

I doubt that it will be an option, because I suspect that the CS100 will put the A318 out of business. The A318 was never a very popular jet, and most of the ones that were sold were retired very early.

Preclearance is at 8 Canadian location: Calgary, Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, and Winnipeg.

In addition preclearance is at Dublin and Shannon in Ireland; Aruba; Freeport and Nassau in The Bahamas; Bermuda; Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.


Boston to Shannon is only a 7% longer route than Boston to San Francisco. Now with preclearance and narrow bodies flying both routes it's almost like Ireland has become about the same as a domestic flight. Iceland is about 11% closer than SFO. They should install preclearance there.

Quote: Pacomartin

Iceland is about 11% closer than SFO. They should install preclearance there.

I don't think distance is the criterion.

My other question is, if there is pre-clearance at your departing airport, do you have to pre-clear, or can you opt to clear immigration on arrival?

I assume it's the former. But there is a valid reason. Many flights to the US by non-US airlines tend to carry few American travelers. Therefore they tend to breeze through the US citizens line, while the rest pile up behind long lines. So I reason US citizens traveling on a non-US carrier from a pre-clearance spot might prefer post-clearance, as it were.

On the other hand, it's late, I'm hungry, and I've been at it since 8 am (it's past 9:30 pm now), so I may not be thinking entirely clearly

Quote: Nareed

I don't think distance is the criterion.

My other question is, if there is pre-clearance at your departing airport, do you have to pre-clear, or can you opt to clear immigration on arrival?
I assume it's the former.

I know that distance is not the criterion, but Iceland is not a big smuggling location.

I don't think pre-clearance is optional, because TSA views it as having the secondary benefit of keeping potential terrorists off the plane. Particularly in the case of planes coming from Canadian airports, the plane can land at a domestic terminal in the USA instead of an international one.

TSA has identified 11 airports identified for possible new preclearance locations. This major expansion must mean that TSA thinks it will improve airline safety.

1. Keflavik International Airport (KEF) in Iceland;
2. Edinburgh Airport (EDI) in Edinburgh, United Kingdom;
3. Milan-Malpensa Airport (MXP) in Milan, Italy;
4. Leonardo da Vinci-Fiumicino Airport (FCO) in Rome, Italy;
5. Kansai International Airport (KIX) in Osaka, Japan;
6. Princess Juliana International Airport (SXM) in St. Maarten.
7. Mexico City International Airport (MEX) in Mexico City, Mexico;
8. El Dorado International Airport (BOG) in Bogota, Colombia;
9. Ministro Pistarini International Airport (EZE) in Buenos Aires, Argentina;
10. Rio de Janeiro-Galeão International Airport (GIG) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;
11. São Paulo-Guarulhos International Airport (GRU) in Sao Paulo, Brazil; and

Abu-Dhabi is not served by a US airline, but their government pays 85% of the costs.

Preclearence is a huge advantage IMO. So much more convenient. I've entered LAX flying from BNE & MEL and at JFK flying from LHR and on each occasion the time spent going through immigration was excessive. On my last trip I also entered at JFK but was coming from YYZ. Sure you are just transferring the immigration time from the arrival airport to the departure airport but landing at JFK and being in a cab to manhattan 10 minutes after disembarking was a much better experience.


EDIT: Preclearance can't be optional because the plane lands at what is effectively a domestic gate. You walk off the plane straight to the baggage claim then straight out the door. There are no immigration facilities at all.