EI520 DUB-CDG (Paris)-faster in 1956?

Avgas

Looking at an old 1956 Aer Lingus timetable (see: http://www.timetableimages.com/ttimages/complete/ei56/ei56-08.jpg) I've worked out that using a Vickers Viscount one could travel from between Dublin and Paris (EI520) SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER than today with an Airbus A320!

Please help-that must be wrong?

From the 1956 timetable EI520 departed DUB at 08.45 and arrived at Le Bourget airport for 10.50. There is a plus 1 hr time difference between Dublin and Paris. So total scheduled flying time = 1hr and 5mins.

TODAY EI520 using an Airbus A320 departs at 06.50 in the morning and arrives as Paris CDG for 09.40 (which is really 8.40 GMT). Total scheduled flying time = 1hrs 50mins.

Conclusion: EI520 IS 45 MINS SLOWER today! 65mins versus 110mins = 45 mins difference.

Air distance between DUB-CDG I estimate at 787km (using http://gc.kls2.com)
Between DUB-LBG the same site gives 784km-so distance can't explain it.

Stacking due to ATC/congestion?

Can anybody out there explain/refute this. I must be totally wrong?

therecklessone

Departure delays at departure aerodrome.
En-route delays through airspace.
Arrival delays at destination aerodrome.

Then add in taxi time, particularly at CDG!

AfterDusk

In reality the flight time is 1hr 15mins, but (as with the majority of airlines across the world) an extra 35mins is added on to the itinerary. Lay people will say this is just so that 'the airlines can keep their on-time record', but there are many reasons: passengers with connecting flights can plan better; if the inbound flight is delayed, slot times for the outbound flight aren't overly disrupted; etc.

Bogger77

I'm not sure OP is reading the timetable correctly
Departing Paris : 19:10 CET
Arriving Dublin: 21:50 CET
That's 2hrs 50minutes duration
Depart Dublin : 08:45 GMT
Arrive Paris : 10:50 GMT
That's 1hrs 55 minutes duration

Current Times, with A320
Depart Dublin : 07:00 GMT
Arrive in Paris : 08:45 GMT
That's 1hr 45mins

Considering ATC routes now and then are probably generally the same between DUB and Paris.

Avgas

Many thanks....I accept the timetable 'padding' explanation that Aer Lingus may have added to the 2010 EI520 route...it is a hub and there would be onward pax. etc. BUT 45 mins.?

Moreover, I've done similar comparisons of 1950s timetables on various routes with either pistons or turboprops versus modern jets and you nearly always see a reduction in scheduled flight time ...albeit less dramatic over shorter routes when larger late 50's turboprops are being compared. If the 'padding' explanation was systematic then I would have expected to see other cases where 1950s schedules were actually quicker....BUT I don't.

Note sure how I'm reading the timetable wrong...I was interested in the DUB-LBG departure....only.

It still seems incredible that a Vickers Viscount was doing that route faster in 1956 than an Airbus today...although note the pax. carrying capacity is much higher today.

BTW as an explanation why and how I got onto this I was examining the viability of larger turboprops (a sort of ATR150?) as potential replacement for 737/A320 market share on SOME routes on emissions/cost grounds...and I got to dealing with the obvious objection that they would make travel times longer as they would be slower. BUT I'm not so sure that is the case.....having compared what turboprops were actually achieving in the late 1950s. Apologies if that is wandering off thread a bit.

Regards. Avgas.

Su Campu

One big gripe I have is when Ryanair play the "Another ontime Ryanair Flight" music when they land, falsely stating that they've arrived ontime. Their arrival time is when the brakes are set at the terminal, not when they land. So in certain cases they'll actually arrive late, after stating they were early. The next time it happens I'm going to say something, that'll learn them!!

AfterDusk

Su Campu wrote: »

One big gripe I have is when Ryanair play the "Another ontime Ryanair Flight" music when they land, falsely stating that they've arrived ontime. Their arrival time is when the brakes are set at the terminal, not when they land. So in certain cases they'll actually arrive late, after stating they were early. The next time it happens I'm going to say something, that'll learn them!!

This thread is not about Ryanair, so why bring that up!! :rolleyes:

lord lucan

Su Campu wrote: »

One big gripe I have is when Ryanair play the "Another ontime Ryanair Flight" music when they land, falsely stating that they've arrived ontime. Their arrival time is when the brakes are set at the terminal, not when they land. So in certain cases they'll actually arrive late, after stating they were early. The next time it happens I'm going to say something, that'll learn them!!

In the interests of fairness,EI do the same regularly in my experience,just without the bells and whistles that FR employ.

Davidth88

It's normal ( although sad )

The aircraft never actually leaves at the time stated , it may push back at that time ( if you are lucky ) but it then has to taxi and wait for the runway to clear . At Dublin there is only one runway so that could take some time , or at Heathrow for example I have waited in a queue to take off for 20-25 mins before now.

Then you arrive at CDG ( Not Le Bourget as it was in the 1950's60's )CDG is much bigger than Le Bourget , and anyone who has been there will testify the taxi times ( crossing runways endless one way systems ) are HUGE.

That of course does not take into account the holding time to actually land at CDG.

Actually FR have an advantage because often fly into isolated airfields with no holding and short taxi's.

Amsterdam is another one where you can taxi for 30 mins , the arriving runway is sometimes 5-6 km from the terminal ( or thereabouts ).

Interesting sounding project OP

Su Campu

neil2304 wrote: »

This thread is not about Ryanair, so why bring that up!! :rolleyes:

No, but it's about scheduled flight times, which is what I was on about. I just used Ryanair as an example.