Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

The Technology & Economic Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to Technological and Economic developments in India. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6578
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 10 May 2017 15:07

It is also a base for 2 very popular tiger reserves.

JayS
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2638
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JayS » 10 May 2017 15:26

amol wrote:The new UDAN route of Mumbai-Nashik is doomed to fail before it even gets off the ground. They've attempted this route multiple times in the past and it's failed each time. Wonder why anyone in their right mind thinks it'll succeed this time around.

The problem is that Nashik is located only 180km from Mumbai. It takes about 3.5 - 4 hours by road today. That's about the same time it'll take someone to get to their destination by air - About an hour to get to the airport, get there an hour before the flight, 40 minutes for the flight and another hour or so to get home from there. Plus its more expensive and timings will be not be flexible.

Instead, they should have started off connecting Nashik to other out-of-the way destinations like Nagpur, Indore, Ahmedabad etc. Even hopping flights like BOM-Nashik-Indore/Nagpur might work.

With an abundance of religious pilgrimage places (also wine tourism) in the vicinity, this is one city that could have been on the national air map a long time ago with some pragmatic planning, but alas!


In addition there are n number of trains between Nashik-Mumbai. Only 3-3.5hr journey. Air travel thing between Nashik-Mumbai makes sense only for those who would like to connect to some other flight from Mumbai or those who don't mind spending 10x more money for only a small time gain. Its really a very small customer base.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 10 May 2017 21:40

We can build a commercial aircraft if we want to. The problem is HAL will do it in twice the time that it would normally take and at a higher
cost than existing alternatives. For all China's ability, the C 919 is not really a success. All critical items are imported - from the same suppliers of Boeing and Airbus. The project was at least 3 years behind schedule. All the orders placed are only by Chinese carriers. The cost is whatever Eleven wants it to be.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 10 May 2017 21:55

Given the likely demand, there are usually only 3 possible airports that a city like Nasik (or any airport outside the top 15 in the country), can be connected to with commercially viable loads.
1. Delhi
2. Mumbai
3. The State capital. ( in the North East, the equivalent would be Gauhati or Kolkata).

Most States are not big enough for a flight from a small city to the State capital. So, they would be restricted to Mumbai or Delhi which will either have slot problems, or, as in the case of Mumbai-Nasik, proximity to Mumbai limits the demand for air travel.
Connectivity boosting should instead be done by linking state capitals with all Metros and then with other State capitals.

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1271
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JohnTitor » 11 May 2017 02:27

Deans wrote:We can build a commercial aircraft if we want to. The problem is HAL will do it in twice the time that it would normally take and at a higher cost than existing alternatives. .

govt enterprises cannot do it. this is why the pvt sector needs to be invited, but they also need to be assured of orders. if the govt said they would buy 250-500 small aircraft, pvt players would invest in it. This is the only way we can grow our MIC and commercial aircraft sector.

For all China's ability, the C 919 is not really a success. All critical items are imported - from the same suppliers of Boeing and Airbus. The project was at least 3 years behind schedule. All the orders placed are only by Chinese carriers. The cost is whatever Eleven wants it to be

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Yes c919 may be importing parts, but 10yrs from now they will be building all the parts themselves. Secondly, i dont see why anyone would order those other than chinese airlines! they are not proven aircraft, give it a decade or two and other airlines will be confident in ordering their planes.

problem is you cannot have instant success, but it has to be incremental. It takes years to grow the infrastructure and knowledge bases. But there has to be resource and willpower committed for it to happen.

chola
BRFite
Posts: 1673
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chola » 11 May 2017 03:11

JohnTitor wrote:
Deans wrote:We can build a commercial aircraft if we want to. The problem is HAL will do it in twice the time that it would normally take and at a higher cost than existing alternatives. .

govt enterprises cannot do it. this is why the pvt sector needs to be invited, but they also need to be assured of orders. if the govt said they would buy 250-500 small aircraft, pvt players would invest in it. This is the only way we can grow our MIC and commercial aircraft sector.

For all China's ability, the C 919 is not really a success. All critical items are imported - from the same suppliers of Boeing and Airbus. The project was at least 3 years behind schedule. All the orders placed are only by Chinese carriers. The cost is whatever Eleven wants it to be

I think you are looking at it the wrong way. Yes c919 may be importing parts, but 10yrs from now they will be building all the parts themselves. Secondly, i dont see why anyone would order those other than chinese airlines! they are not proven aircraft, give it a decade or two and other airlines will be confident in ordering their planes.

problem is you cannot have instant success, but it has to be incremental. It takes years to grow the infrastructure and knowledge bases. But there has to be resource and willpower committed for it to happen.



Yes, I posted the chini Y-10 saga for two reasons.

One, it could be done. The tiny industrial base of 1970s PRC was able to build a 178 passenger aircraft that flew. India of today has a much bigger and sophisticated industrial base. So if it was possible for them then, it is definitely possible for us now.

Two, we must support such an endeavor over the long term. The Y-10 flew 130 times. It actually carried CCP flunkies around the nation. But it died when support was removed and given instead to a screwdrivergiri project. Forty odd years later, Cheen is back with the C919 what it had four decades ago with the Y-10 -- a domestic airframe with foreign engines. The one difference (but one that could be vital) is the level of western components not available to the Y-10 which also means a path to Western certification.

If we can build a large airframe, it would be a fabulous start. The engine can come later. The same with the avionics. One step at a time. Simply having an airframe, a platform of our own, to modify and experiment with is half the battle.

Prasad
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6578
Joined: 16 Nov 2007 00:53
Location: Chennai

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Prasad » 11 May 2017 10:16

How much local IP would be generated if you invite private players. Even with an assured intent to buy say 300 planes. Will they go the whole hog to design a major part of the plane or will they reduce themselves to a JV in all butname and import most of everything?

JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1271
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JohnTitor » 11 May 2017 12:04

Initially none. The thing is , even with a JV they will still learn. Because costs and profits matter to private players. PSUs sont care for either.

Their only requirement is assured orders until the industry matures. After that they will be innovation and export driven

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 14 May 2017 19:17

E.t. excerpt

The Economic TimesGET APP

With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.

MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.

In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.

Supratik
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4887
Joined: 09 Nov 2005 10:21
Location: USA

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Supratik » 14 May 2017 22:47

YA has now initiated the Jewar airport near Greater Noida. It is very essential to serve the Ghaziabad-Noida-Faridabad upto Agra region. Will lead to rapid development in the region as is happening in the Gurgaon-Manesar belt due to close connectivity to IGIA.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 15 May 2017 10:23

indeed. there should not be any division of one being international or full service and one a neutered dwarf lcc.
each airport should be given all types of flights. let the load be distributed. once the metro airport link is in place, distance to city is not a concern.

westen UP suburbs and adjoining area of haryana is a vast catchment area, this airport will be viable from day1.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 16 May 2017 10:00

LCC's internationally operate from airports in more remote areas and which have low operating costs. That concept is not understood in India and there is nothing low cost about a low cost carrier. For e.g. LCC's like Ryan air operate from Frankfurt Hahn and not Frankfurt Main (which is a main hub).
The cost from Frankfurt Hahn to the city of Frankfurt by train is sometimes more than the airfare from UK to Frankfurt. Similarly, the LCC airport for Denmark is in Sweden !

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2512
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 16 May 2017 10:52

Deans wrote:LCC's internationally operate from airports in more remote areas and which have low operating costs.


Not necessarily. For instance, LCCs in Japan and Korea share the same airport and often the same terminal with the regular service airlines. Peach, a Japanese LCC for instance, has its own terminal at Kansai International airport (the key gateway out of west Japan), but flies into the regular airports and uses regular terminals elsewhere. Likewise, Korean LCC Jeju air too flies in and out of both Seoul Gimpo and Incheon airports.

A different model perhaps?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 16 May 2017 21:18

air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.

in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 16 May 2017 22:12

Kashi wrote:
Deans wrote:LCC's internationally operate from airports in more remote areas and which have low operating costs.


Not necessarily. For instance, LCCs in Japan and Korea share the same airport and often the same terminal with the regular service airlines. Peach, a Japanese LCC for instance, has its own terminal at Kansai International airport (the key gateway out of west Japan), but flies into the regular airports and uses regular terminals elsewhere. Likewise, Korean LCC Jeju air too flies in and out of both Seoul Gimpo and Incheon airports.

A different model perhaps?


That's because Japan, Korea (and Singapore) are smaller countries where land is very expensive and the cost of a 2nd airport (for LCC''s) would be
higher than simply expanding existing infrastructure of the existing airport. LCC's are also not doing well in Asia (Air Asia only makes money in
Malaysia).

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 16 May 2017 22:15

Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.

in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.


That's correct. For e.g. ATF prices in India are among the highest in the world. LCC's cannot independently negotiate landing fees etc with airports, or ATF tax with State Govts.

Kashi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2512
Joined: 06 May 2011 13:53

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Kashi » 17 May 2017 05:25

Deans wrote:That's because Japan, Korea (and Singapore) are smaller countries where land is very expensive and the cost of a 2nd airport (for LCC''s) would be higher than simply expanding existing infrastructure of the existing airport. LCC's are also not doing well in Asia (Air Asia only makes money in
Malaysia).


Land cost is definitely a factor, but the big cities in Japan and Korea- Tokyo (Narita, Haneda) , Osaka (Kansai, Itami), Seoul (Incheon, Gimpo), have two airports anyway. It appears that LCCs in these countries have chosen to share the existing airports with other carriers or in a few case operate from dedicated terminals (Peach and Kansai). A few others such as Vanilla air, chose to fly to Kobe airport (a smaller airport on an artificial island) instead of Kansai.

Regarding the LCCs not doing so well, I cannot say much about their financials, but it appears that Peach and Jet Star seem to be doing very well for themselves.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 17 May 2017 11:06

Kashi wrote:Land cost is definitely a factor, but the big cities in Japan and Korea- Tokyo (Narita, Haneda) , Osaka (Kansai, Itami), Seoul (Incheon, Gimpo), have two airports anyway. It appears that LCCs in these countries have chosen to share the existing airports with other carriers or in a few case operate from dedicated terminals (Peach and Kansai). A few others such as Vanilla air, chose to fly to Kobe airport (a smaller airport on an artificial island) instead of Kansai.

Regarding the LCCs not doing so well, I cannot say much about their financials, but it appears that Peach and Jet Star seem to be doing very well for themselves.


Peach is part of All Nippon Air and Jet Star the low cost division of Quantas. In such a situation a lot of overhead is shared and its difficult to
estimate what the profitability would be had it been a stand alone airline. It would certainly be a lot less.
Both airlines made money in 2016 on the back of low oil (ATF) prices, but they were earlier loss making.

James
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 77
Joined: 13 Sep 2009 16:48

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby James » 17 May 2017 11:43

Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.

in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.


The highlighted part is not correct. The main airport in BKK is Suvarnabhumi, but Air Asia does not operate from here. They operate from the secondary airport Don Muang. Even this secondary airport has 2 runways (with a golf course b/w them!)

Neela
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3491
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Location: Spectator in the dossier diplomacy tennis match

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Neela » 17 May 2017 12:01

Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt

The Economic TimesGET APP

With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.

MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.

In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.


Not something to be proud of.
Stress on aircraft crew, ground personnel, ATC etc. Wafer thin safety margins.
It would be interesting to see the safety & accident log at Mumbai Airport. And then compare with say Singapore.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 17 May 2017 19:10

James wrote:
Singha wrote:air asia the biggest LCC in ASEAN region operates out of bangkok main airport and the LCC terminal in singapore(connected by a short monorail) not a separate airport.

in india I think aviation fuel cost + taxes, parking fees, AAI fees, security fees, terminal space rental, landing fees, UDF are quite high compared to low cost success stories abroad. everyone has their hooks into the airlines and LCCs are not given any concessions operationally.


The highlighted part is not correct. The main airport in BKK is Suvarnabhumi, but Air Asia does not operate from here. They operate from the secondary airport Don Muang. Even this secondary airport has 2 runways (with a golf course b/w them!)


in 2008 when i visited , i took a air asia flight to phuket from suvarnabhumi. maybe things changed now.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1282
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 19 May 2017 18:28

Here we go again. COMAC is thinking of investing in Bombardier. Why doesn't Reliance or Tatas who "want" to get in to Aerospace can't do this? I read that Bombardier C-Series is just not able to crack in to China and the investors are panicking. So another superb move by China to make sure that Bombardier will have "access" to China by forcing them to agree for COMAC investing in their company, just like how China forced Boeing & Airbus to open plants in China.

I dunno how feasible this would be, but perhaps GoI can provide half of the funds to a big Indian private conglomerate who would be willing to bid on Bombarier. These are possibly once in a lifetime opportunities for us to catch up on state-of-the-art Aerospace R&D, manf activities. Starting from scratch would be expensive and a very risky affair. NAL SARAS and/or RTA is going no where or will take so much time to mature. Bombardier aircrafts can be used by IAF/IN for defence applications as well.

A bombardier plant in India owned by Tatas or Reliance would be as valuable as Lockeed or Dassualt plant. The fruits could be very valuable...just like acquisition of JLR by Tatas improved the quality of their cars in Desh.

Chinese group in talks to aid struggling jet maker Bombardier

China’s Comac and Bombardier have held talks about a deal that could inject new life into the debt-laden Canadian company’s passenger jet business, several people familiar with the discussions said.

Comac is working with at least one bank on a tie-up that could involve China’s state-owned aircraft manufacturer making an investment in Bombardier’s commercial aerospace arm or taking a stake in the CSeries 100-150 seater passenger jet programme.

“Everything is on the table,” said a person with knowledge of the discussions.

The companies are understood to have been in discussions about a deal for some time, although no decision is imminent, the person said.

Comac did not respond to a request for comment. Bombardier also declined to comment.

The Canadian company, which has received nearly $3bn in publicly funded cash injections over the past two years, is exploring a similar industrial tie-up with Siemens for its rail business. An attempt in 2015 to rescue the costly CSeries programme by injecting it into a joint venture with Airbus collapsed in acrimony.

The Chinese approach to one of Canada’s most-prized industrial assets comes after at least one other government-controlled Chinese company launched talks with the group, which have since ended.

Bombardier has sought partners in its aerospace and transport divisions to mitigate the unexpectedly high costs of bringing its CSeries passenger jet into service, with the programme running billions over budget.

The jet is widely acknowledged to be highly efficient but it has struggled in recent months to win big new orders with both Boeing and Airbus cutting prices on their smallest aircraft.

The US Commerce Department on Thursday gave its go-ahead to an anti-dumping investigation against Bombardier requested by Boeing over the pricing of the Canadian company’s small single-aisle jet. The investigation could result in hefty tariffs and damage its appeal to the US market.

In recent weeks Comac has launched a test flight of its first short-haul commercial passenger aircraft aimed at competing with Airbus and Boeing. But the C919 is still mainly an assembly of parts from other foreign manufacturers.

Based on older-generation technology, and not yet certified by western aviation safety authorities, it is not expected to win many orders with airlines outside China in the near term.

Access to the CSeries programme and its new-generation aircraft technology would boost the development of Comac’s decades-long haul toward becoming an aviation giant.

Comac and Bombardier have been close for years. In 2012, the companies signed an agreement to find commonalities between the C919 and Bombardier’s CSeries to reduce training and maintenance costs.

The companies have floated the idea of co-operating to compete against Boeing and Airbus. Bombardier has also advised Comac on its smaller regional jet, the ARJ-21, which went into commercial operation last year following years of delay.

Comac is not the first Chinese group to pursue Bombardier. Avic, the state aerospace and defence group from which Comac was formed a decade ago, has held direct discussions with Bombardier in recent years, said one person involved in the talks.

Avic explored taking a stake in and a deal for control of the Canadian group but the discussions did not reach an advanced stage, partially due to leadership changes at Avic, the person said.

Regulatory problems also surfaced at the time “and there were concerns over how that would be navigated”, the person said. The apprehension probably stemmed from Avic’s deep ties to the Chinese military.

Comac was spun out of Avic in 2008 and Avic remains a significant shareholder in the company. Comac’s operations focus on civil aviation and it was unclear whether a potential deal between the two companies would be beset with similar problems.

Comac’s trajectory to the global market has been turbulent. The C919, the test flight of which came years behind schedule, is also 10-15 years behind the rest of the industry. Despite those problems, China is expected to become the world’s biggest aviation market by 2024. C919 already has 500 orders from Chinese airlines.


The above article brakes my heart. The Chinese are doing everything they can to improve their foot print on major industries. I am sure India will sit back and watch the action as it unfolds. Since Khan/EU etc are clamping down on foreign labour heavily, perhaps it is time that folks in certain industries learn Mandarin so that we may try to gain employment in China in future!

chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 15856
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby chetak » 19 May 2017 19:47

Neela wrote:
Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt

The Economic TimesGET APP

With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.

MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.

In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.


Not something to be proud of.
Stress on aircraft crew, ground personnel, ATC etc. Wafer thin safety margins.
It would be interesting to see the safety & accident log at Mumbai Airport. And then compare with say Singapore.


and some swiss aholes are allowed to shut down an operational airport in bangalore just to protect their revenue stream and better their business prospects by buggering an Indian public sector enterprise.??

Would it be possible to do the same in switzerland??

similar shit was done in hyderabad also by shutting down begumpet airport

nachiket
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5818
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49
Location: Соединенные Штаты Америки

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby nachiket » 20 May 2017 05:34

Neela wrote:
Singha wrote:E.t. excerpt

The Economic TimesGET APP

With 1 flight in 65 secs, Mumbai busiest single-runway airport
By PTI | May 14, 2017, 02.15

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway.

MUMBAI: The GVK group-run Mumbai airport has become the world's busiest amongst the single-runway facilities by handling 837 flights a day or one in 65 seconds on an average in fiscal 2017, taking over London's Gatwick airport that had 757 flights a day.

In terms of the number of passengers also, the city airport tops with 45.2 million people flying in and out in fiscal 2017 as against 44 million at Gatwick airport.

Notably, no other large city in the world is served by one airport, that too with a single-runway. Besides, illegal squatters occupy nearly one-third of the airport land.


Not something to be proud of.
Stress on aircraft crew, ground personnel, ATC etc. Wafer thin safety margins.
It would be interesting to see the safety & accident log at Mumbai Airport. And then compare with say Singapore.

Exactly! I don't even want to imagine the number of near-miss incidents in the skies around BOM. The sooner they build Navi Mumbai airport and now the Jewar airport that someone mentioned above the better. Cities with the population of Mumbai and Delhi+NCR having 1 airport is pathetic. Of course true to form we have started digging the well when we are dying of thirst.

In fact I think if they sort out the connectivity issues to Navi Mumbai airport, that one should become the main Mumbai airport while the current one should be relegated to secondary status, considering that the new one is likely to have more space with two parallel runways..

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 20 May 2017 07:23

Hal airport was clearly not viable even as a lcc. Airport road and noise being main issues. It had an total of 3 baggage claim belts...scene in evening towards the end utter chaos and same for intl flights. Multiple times wife had to walk with luggage frm main road to enter in time as road was choked. With current volume of low cost airline they would start walking from.domlur and marathalli.

Deans
BRFite
Posts: 644
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Deans » 20 May 2017 10:03

It is possible to use HAL airport for private jets / private flights of VIP's and for Airlines which have just 1 flight a day and are single aisle (200 pax or less) so that the existing infrastructure is not strained.
For e.g Sri lankan, Tiger Air, Silk air can use HAL. They are typically point to point flights with few transiting passengers (who will need BIAL airport to transit). It will help HAL's profitability (badly hit after the airport closed) and release a few peak slots for BIAL airport.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Gagan » 23 May 2017 22:39

Look at what all Tata is doing !
These pvt companies will in the very near future upsurp HAL. They have really advanced engg workshops, extensive metallurgy experience with their own metallurgy labs, and a privately run and managed work ethic.

If these pvt companies in india start doing R&D, they will completely upsurp HAL or DRDO or ADE or NAL or other western manufacturers

https://youtu.be/L3ybiUzFDLo

Rahul M
Forum Moderator
Posts: 16227
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 21:09
Location: woh log gawad hai, unpad hai !
Contact:

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Rahul M » 24 May 2017 08:46

chetak ji, other civil aviation buffs, is there an international standard for air-routes ? if so, what is it called and which is the nodal authority for defining them ?
TIA.

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1282
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 28 May 2017 17:26

Finally Irkut's MS-21 makes its first flight.

Irkut MC-21 becomes airborne

Image

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19755
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Austin » 28 May 2017 22:22

Irkut MS-21 First Flight [ Full Video ]


JohnTitor
BRFite
Posts: 1271
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby JohnTitor » 29 May 2017 21:24

#Intolerant भारतीय‏
@goyalsanjeev

Following
More
This is where @narendramodi Govt disappointed big-time
Cases against lowly officials,but none against UPA ministers involved
@praful_patel

Image

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7571
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Theo_Fidel » 01 Jun 2017 10:36

If you truly love Air India, let it fly away

The merged AI’s debt today stands at almost Rs50,000 crore. It reported a loss of about Rs3,587 crore in 2015-16. The employee ratio may have dipped to 120 per plane, but it’s still significantly higher than the global average of 100. AI spends almost a fifth of its revenue on pay and employee benefits while others like Jet Airways spend only about a tenth.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 60362
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: Lupine but moderately dharmic

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Singha » 01 Jun 2017 13:34

a warm welcome Theo saar. a lot of people were asking about you post the flood in chennai and none could ever track you down.

Marten
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2176
Joined: 01 Jan 2010 21:41
Location: Engaging Communists, Uber-Socialists, Maoists, and other pro-poverty groups in fruitful dialog.

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Marten » 01 Jun 2017 17:13

Theo_Fidel wrote:If you truly love Air India, let it fly away

The merged AI’s debt today stands at almost Rs50,000 crore. It reported a loss of about Rs3,587 crore in 2015-16. The employee ratio may have dipped to 120 per plane, but it’s still significantly higher than the global average of 100. AI spends almost a fifth of its revenue on pay and employee benefits while others like Jet Airways spend only about a tenth.

Welcome back, TF! Happy to see you back.
What took you so long? Missed the entire demonetization debate, didn't ya?

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7571
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Theo_Fidel » 01 Jun 2017 23:35

Thx. Marten.

There is a 186 pages I have missed saar. What are you trying to do to me. I will need another 2 year vanvaas and another stay in aspatal to figure it all out.

Picklu
BRFite
Posts: 1608
Joined: 25 Feb 2004 12:31

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Picklu » 01 Jun 2017 23:47

Singha wrote:a warm welcome Theo saar. a lot of people were asking about you post the flood in chennai and none could ever track you down.


welcome back. hope everything is fine.

Gagan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10672
Joined: 16 Apr 2008 22:25

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Gagan » 02 Jun 2017 19:19

Theo_Fidel wrote:Thx. Marten.

There is a 186 pages I have missed saar. What are you trying to do to me. I will need another 2 year vanvaas and another stay in aspatal to figure it all out.

You were in an Aspataal? What happened?

Theo_Fidel
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7571
Joined: 31 Mar 2006 02:15
Location: MO,US,NCJ TN

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Theo_Fidel » 02 Jun 2017 23:48

Nothing too serious. Just a kutti heart 'problem'. SOP for the age group.... :(

deejay
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 3511
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby deejay » 04 Jun 2017 14:32

Theo_Fidel wrote:Thx. Marten.

There is a 186 pages I have missed saar. What are you trying to do to me. I will need another 2 year vanvaas and another stay in aspatal to figure it all out.


Welcome Back Sir, Welcome back. Good to see you post. You had us worried. Hope all is fine?

Zynda
BRFite
Posts: 1282
Joined: 07 Jan 2006 00:37
Location: J4

Re: Civil Aviation Development & Discussion

Postby Zynda » 05 Jun 2017 20:02

All OEMs (Western & Russian) are interested in engaging with China and are prolly going outta their way.

Here is the latest attempt from Airbus.

Airbus Steps Up China Charm Offensive

Airbus and China intend to strengthen their technical and engineering ties following the signing of a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on aviation and aerospace.

Under the proposed deal, Airbus will help develop engineering skills and high-tech innovation in China, and further integrate Chinese suppliers into its supply chain.

That chain already includes a completion facility in Tianjin set to deliver its first A330 in September, and the A320 Family Aircraft Final Assembly Line Asia, which will start work on its first A320neo later this year.

Global supply chains have caused problems for airframers in the past, notably on the delayed 787 programme.

Yet Airbus would argue that, unlike Boeing, cross-border integration is in its DNA, given that the company was a multi-national project from the start.

Longer term, there is the question of technology transfer, and the extent to which Airbus is helping to create a rival by supporting Chinese aerospace development.

Here, current thinking seems to be that China is too large a market to ignore, and that some knowledge transfer is the price of access. Boeing is also constructing a completion and delivery centre, for the 737, in China.


“The success of the industrial cooperation between Airbus and China makes itself a model of high-tech and win-win partnership between China and Europe,” said Fabrice Brégier at the signing of the recent MoU.

Aviation Week’s 2017 Commercial Aviation Fleet & MRO Forecast predicts that the Chinese fleet will grow by 40% over the next five years to 4,900 aircraft, of which 48% will be Boeing and 41% Airbus.

Those aircraft are expected to generate $41 billion in MRO demand, with a heavy emphasis on component maintenance.


Ultimately money talks. It is high time we learn to channelize our economy strengths to help our interests advance. Indian aerospace industry (at least engineering & manf side) is on a recession or at least no growth since 2014...anyways, what is the point.


Return to “Technology & Economic Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests