Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Flight times reduced due to emptier skies.

  • 14-08-2020 9:13am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    I saw that this flight was exceptionally short. 92 minutes to travel between Dublin and Frankfurt

    14 Aug 2020 Frankfurt (FRA) Dublin (DUB) B738 (9H-QAL) 1:32 6:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:15 AM Landed 6:32 AM

    The return flight was 29 minutes early.
    14 Aug 2020 Dublin (DUB) Frankfurt (FRA) FR380 1:43 7:40 AM 7:42 AM 10:55 AM Landed 10:26 AM

    There is less congestion in the sky and less congestion at the airports. Airplanes aren't circling around in holding patterns or accelerating and decelerating to the same extent en route.

    With flight times like these you could get an extra 2 short flights in to the daily schedule of any Operator, not just Ryanair.

    Having to spend a half hour less on a plane is welcome for passengers too.

    Hopefully something can be taken from this after the crisis has ended.


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,520 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    At the Dublin end the greatest change is reduced taxi times and virtually no queues for departure. The time spent in the air is not likely to be hugely reduced, I suspect.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Well, isn't a case that these days you don't get in to the air until the receiving airport is ready to receive you and air traffic control have a route through which you can fly.
    Between congestion in the Airport of Departure, Airport of Arrival and along the way it all adds up.

    I also wonder if as the larger airplanes are retired with they have to make less allowances for Wake from those larger planes affecting the regional jets and props.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,862 ✭✭✭ Abel Witty Ace


    rivegauche wrote: »
    With flight times like these you could get an extra 2 short flights in to the daily schedule of any Operator, not just Ryanair.

    Think about that for a few minutes! :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭AnRothar


    rivegauche wrote: »
    There is less congestion in the sky and less congestion at the airports. Airplanes aren't circling around in holding patterns or accelerating and decelerating to the same extent en route.

    With flight times like these you could get an extra 2 short flights in to the daily schedule of any Operator, not just Ryanair.

    Having to spend a half hour less on a plane is welcome for passengers too.

    Hopefully something can be taken from this after the crisis has ended.

    Selective selection of data to support your hypothesis.
    :D:D

    Congestion is multifaceted.

    The purpose of flow control is to maximise capacity.
    Current tolerances in departure times are been reduced to increase capacity.
    Current enroute delay was been addressed by tactical rerouting and departure times to correspond with arrival times.

    Airlines know well that if they arrive late the passenger may be entitled to the dreaded compensation, so they have padded their schedules to allow for this.
    The EU has twigged this trick and has started to look at "flight times".


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Think about that for a few minutes! :pac:
    I am. higher utilisation of fewer planes with those flights coming at the start and end of the day and fewer planes means less airport congestion on the apron.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,520 ✭✭✭EchoIndia


    The flight times quoted are not exceptionally short. I have flown between Dublin and Frankfurt many times and those aren't untypical. As stated by others, the effect of padding timetables so as to make "on-time arrival" easier to achieve is what you are really seeing here.


  • Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Lockheed


    rivegauche wrote: »
    There is less congestion in the sky and less congestion at the airports. Airplanes aren't circling around in holding patterns or accelerating and decelerating to the same extent en route.

    You picked the worst example possible. Planes just don't hold like this in Frankfurt, there are 3 parallel runways and a diagonal runway for take off so planes just flow in and out constantly unless there is a weather problem. Probably the most efficient airport to land at in the world. Your point about adding in one or two flights is invalid because flights are planned to include potential delays. For example the flight from DUB - LBA apparently takes 50-60mins according to the schedule but it can be as short as 35 mins on a good day.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    It is 1100km as the crow flies. It couldn't be much faster. The cruise speed of a 737 is about 900 to 930kmph.

    Frankfurt and Dublin are doing their part with new runways and terminals so at least the ground delays will be minimised in the future.

    flight times for LHR would be much faster if they had a little bit room for manoeuvre on the ground rather than forcing planes to circle overhead for quarter of an hour or more in peak times.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Lockheed wrote: »
    You picked the worst example possible. Planes just don't hold like this in Frankfurt, there are 3 parallel runways and a diagonal runway for take off so planes just flow in and out constantly unless there is a weather problem. .
    It will be better with a third terminal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 631 ✭✭✭Lockheed


    rivegauche wrote: »
    It is 1100km as the crow flies. It couldn't be much faster. The cruise speed of a 737 is about 900 to 930kmph.

    Frankfurt and Dublin are doing their part with new runways and terminals so at least the ground delays will be minimised in the future.

    flight times for LHR would be much faster if they had a little bit room for manoeuvre on the ground rather than forcing planes to circle overhead for quarter of an hour or more in peak times.

    There is no room at LHR for any more room for maneuver - any expansion gets shot down by the endless NIMBYs that live around the airport. This is why the delay is factored into the flight time. Flight planners take the average delay for all flights of a similar distance and incorporate that in on your boarding pass so it always seems on time, when really they give themselves such a wide berth it could be 20 mins later then another flight. Yes Frankfurt will be better when the third terminal opens, i took the apron tour earlier this year, its one hell of a construction project


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Lockheed wrote: »
    There is no room at LHR for any more room for maneuver - any expansion gets shot down by the endless NIMBYs that live around the airport. This is why the delay is factored into the flight time. Flight planners take the average delay for all flights of a similar distance and incorporate that in on your boarding pass so it always seems on time, when really they give themselves such a wide berth it could be 20 mins later then another flight. Yes Frankfurt will be better when the third terminal opens, i took the apron tour earlier this year, its one hell of a construction project
    I'm convinved that they could get around the NIMBYs and Ecomentalists in LHR
    by building a shorter additional runway which their planning permission already allowed. The future of middle to long distance is the 737Max10 and more especially the A321XLR.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,473 ✭✭✭Jack1985


    Think about that for a few minutes! :pac:

    I think the point has gone right over their heads.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    Do ya think?


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭AnRothar


    rivegauche wrote: »

    I also wonder if as the larger airplanes are retired with they have to make less allowances for Wake from those larger planes affecting the regional jets and props.
    Define "larger airplanes".
    There are not as many " larger aircraft" movements as you seem to think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    planes capable of travelling longer distances which up until recently equaled larger than single aisle.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,743 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    rivegauche wrote: »
    I saw that this flight was exceptionally short. 92 minutes to travel between Dublin and Frankfurt

    14 Aug 2020 Frankfurt (FRA) Dublin (DUB) B738 (9H-QAL) 1:32 6:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:15 AM Landed 6:32 AM

    The return flight was 29 minutes early.
    14 Aug 2020 Dublin (DUB) Frankfurt (FRA) FR380 1:43 7:40 AM 7:42 AM 10:55 AM Landed 10:26 AM

    There is less congestion in the sky and less congestion at the airports. Airplanes aren't circling around in holding patterns or accelerating and decelerating to the same extent en route.

    With flight times like these you could get an extra 2 short flights in to the daily schedule of any Operator, not just Ryanair.

    Having to spend a half hour less on a plane is welcome for passengers too.

    Hopefully something can be taken from this after the crisis has ended.

    Just to point out that things are not quite as they seem in your comparisons I am afraid.

    You are making the repeated mistake that many do in comparing the two sets of times.

    FR24 compares apples with oranges.

    The scheduled times are the times off and on stand, while the actual times are take off and landing times, which are completely different as the actual times don’t reflect taxi time at airports between the departure/arrival stand and the runway.

    To put that into perspective, FR381 took off at 06:00, which means it must have left the gate 10-15 minutes early, given a scheduled departure time from the gate of 06:00.

    It landed at 06:32, meaning it was probably on stand by 06:40.

    Yes it was ahead of schedule, but not by as much as you think.

    The return flight also left the gate ahead of schedule, but would have taken say 10 mins to get to the gate on arrival at FRA.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    If you weren't on the flight then you haven't disproved my assertion that flight times end to end are shorter.
    My experience of this flight in the past is that there are often delays for push back and pilots apologise to passengers for delays.
    I wasn't on this flight today despite having booked it due to imposition of quarantine in Ireland making my flight pointless but the last time I used this flight less than two months ago they didn't close the doors particularly early and it arrived well ahead of time.

    I hope with adjustments to EU261 and a shakeout in the skies that all Carriers will be able to shrink their timings for routes and enjoy higher occupancy on their equipment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,743 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    rivegauche wrote: »
    If you weren't on the flight then you haven't disproved my assertion that flight times end to end are shorter.
    My experience of this flight in the past is that there are often delays for push back and pilots apologise to passengers for delays.
    I wasn't on this flight today despite having booked it due to imposition of quarantine in Ireland making my flight pointless but the last time I used this flight less than two months ago they didn't close the doors particularly early and it arrived well ahead of time.

    I hope with adjustments to EU261 and a shakeout in the skies that all Carriers will be able to shrink their timings for routes and enjoy higher occupancy on their equipment.

    I am just making the point though that you have to adjust the "actual" times on FR24 for taxi from and to the stand to compare with the scheduled times, and that will reduce the perceived gains. It's not quite as clear cut as many think.

    Flights are, I am sure, taking less time stand to stand than the schedule allows given the fact that fewer aircraft are flying, but FR 24 doesn't give you a full picture as it is comparing two different sets of times.

    So FR381 was probably something more like 22 mins early on stand rather than the 29 minutes early that you suggested, (allowing about 7 mins taxi time at FRA), but it probably pushed back early at about 07:33 or so (not 07:40) in Dublin to take off at 07:42.

    Therefore the overall saving was only about 15 minutes on the scheduled time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 490 ✭✭AnRothar


    LXFlyer wrote: »
    I am just making the point though that you have to adjust the "actual" times on FR24 for taxi from and to the stand to compare with the scheduled times, and that will reduce the perceived gains. It's not quite as clear cut as many think
    Stop making sense. That's not alowed.
    planes capable of travelling longer distances which up until recently equaled larger than single aisle.
    Wake turbulence is based on weight (t & c's apply).I
    of fewer planes with those flights coming at the start and end of the day and fewer planes means less airport congestion on the apron.
    This was the raison detre of the A380.
    That didn't work so well.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭rivegauche


    AnRothar wrote: »
    Stop making sense. That's not alowed.
    That's not a very helpful comment there since I've justified my viewpoint robustly.
    What's more I looked back to my last flight FRA-DUB and I had already collected my hire car by the time the flight should have landed.
    AnRothar wrote: »
    Wake turbulence is based on weight (t & c's apply).I
    single aisles are generally lighter and don't produce as much wake turbulence. t & c's apply e.g. not long for the world 757s.
    ...so you agree with my general rule of thumb but want to engage in self-aggrandisement(we know you are connected to ATC)
    AnRothar wrote: »
    This was the raison detre of the A380.
    That didn't work so well.
    Whataboutery like that can wait until more airports are equipped to handle that particular flight of folly.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,189 ✭✭✭Gekko


    Early on in the pandemic, there was a tweet, by an AL pilot I think it was, saying DUB-LHR took about 43 mins.

    No taxiing delays in DUB. Pre Covid, early in the morning you could be taxiing for around that long, in a queue to take off!


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 9,564 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tenger


    Gekko wrote: »
    Early on in the pandemic, there was a tweet, by an AL pilot I think it was, saying DUB-LHR took about 43 mins.

    No taxiing delays in DUB. Pre Covid, early in the morning you could be taxiing for around that long, in a queue to take off!

    43 mins? rookie number.
    I’ve personally been crew on a sub 40 min flight on an EI A321 back in 1999-2000. It was LHR-DUB and the RAF weren’t training, must have been a weekend.
    The old adage in Aer Lingus (it might still be there) was that if you had the chance to have a cup of tea inflight on a Heathrow then something had gone wrong.

    Also in the early 2000s we did MAN-DUB in 26 mins. I remember it very well,‘Premier’ was still a thing back then. Gear was down as we were pulling trays out of ppl’s hands.
    Edit; Actually must have been Pre 9/11 because I was able to go into the cockpit before we got onto stand to give the captain a shocked “what bloody type of 35 min flight time was that?”


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,352 ✭✭✭john boye


    26 minutes was quite typical on MAN-DUB on both EI and FR when I did it regularly up until a few years ago, especially in the late evening


  • Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 6,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭Irish Steve


    long time ago now, late evening BA BAC 1-11, (yeah) LHR to DUB, they almost literally threw the meal trays at us as we went over Windsor, and were tearing them out of our hands over Rush less than 30 minutes later, Intersection departure off 28R, and straight in to 23 at Dublin, and it was a hot descent all the way down, LHR to abeam Swindon, direct RSH, and no headwinds to slow things down.

    Did hear of a 17 minute brakes to brakes on a DUB Liverpool flight one day, easterly winds, so a 10 departure out of Dublin, and straight on to 09 at Liverpool.

    Shore, if it was easy, everybody would be doin it.😁



  • Registered Users Posts: 643 ✭✭✭faoiarvok


    Jack1985 wrote: »
    I think the point has gone right over their heads.

    Certainly has for me. What is the suggestion? That less congestion has meant quicker flights, so we should put on more flights but somehow not create more congestion?




  • Think about that for a few minutes! :pac:
    Doug Munde you are the one who should have spent a few minutes thinking about it before posting. There is nothing wrong with the OPs logic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,152 ✭✭✭bkehoe


    Back flying for over 6 weeks now and while there are more shortcuts being given by ATC, the net effect on the flight time of these over a 2 or 3 hour sector is sub 5 mins. Optimised flight planned routes (software changing the routes to account for dynamic weather conditions) and ATC preferred routes (i.e. expected normal shortcuts even in peak summer schedules) mean that most aircraft have been flying close to the great circle route or minimal flight time routes anyway irrespective of the COVID effect. Lack of congestion in terminals (so pax board quicker and earlier), no delay getting pushback and no queues for departure are as what several here have already pointed out have resulted in some examples of reduced actual block times. The most significant contributor to my early arrivals has been early pushbacks due to boarding being completed ahead of the planned times. Airlines won't plan for these times in the future schedules though as it's a temporary phenomenon and schedules are set up to a year in advance.


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 64,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ...because hammering extra cycles in to the few aircraft you have operating is such an incredibly sensible idea right now; as is adding more capacity when nobody is flying. Great idea.




  • L1011 wrote: »
    ...because hammering extra cycles in to the few aircraft you have operating is such an incredibly sensible idea right now; as is adding more capacity when nobody is flying. Great idea.
    I'm re-reading the OP's contribution and they didn't say that.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 64,233 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    I'm re-reading the OP's contribution and they didn't say that.

    They did

    "With flight times like these you could get an extra 2 short flights in to the daily schedule of any Operator, not just Ryanair."

    Its an ill-informed comment and a ridiculous suggestion; as the replies have shown.


Advertisement