My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
SR20 wrote: ↑06 Jun 2018, 20:30
According to newspaper "L'écho", Chinese charters might not start again from LGG, U-Tour beeing an Air Belgium shareholder !
Does this mean that the Sowaer investment in the passengers terminal at LGG is now wasted money?
Unless we call it a good investment for one 737 a day (the TUI 737).
TUI is a complete shame. They invest everywhere in Belgium except in LGG.
If I was LGG mgmt I would kick them out immediately.
And yes that terminal is pretty useless because of that walloon rule written in stone, cargo in lgg, pax in crl.
it only got clearer.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
I’d say TUI’s, and especially TUI Belgium’s, track record has proven they’re perfectly capable of running a rather profitable airline, within their corner of the market.
The fact that they’re not launching any new flights from LGG perhaps says more about the demand than it does about their intentions, or lack thereof.
The fact that they had to fly OST-LGG-LPA-LGG-OST in the past to get a flight at least partway full also speaks.
there are a lot of successful airports and airlines in a 100km radius, I doubt we should discuss that new blackhole unknown by the scientists
It's a dedicated freighter airport, period.
and maintaining a pax terminal for one sole client with one flight per day is non sense to me.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Maybe better to dismantle the pax terminal and re-construct it at ANR
Yesterday they had arrivals of 2 TUI EMB190, 1 FlyBe and 1 VLM at the same time... with 1 baggage carousel..., the terminal is becoming too small already
ACE Belgium Freighters plans to begin operations in October 2018 with one B747-400F based in Liege. The aircraft is likely to be sourced from parent CAL Cargo Airlines (Israel). ACE is mulling service to New York JFK, Atlanta, Dallas FW and Chicago, as well as China and Africa. The second aircraft is likely to be a B747-400 production freighter.
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
West Atlantic (from Sweden) to operate its four B737-800BCFs on behalf of FedEx. The aircraft are on order with leasing company GECAS, with the first aircraft now based in Liege, and second due soon. The remaining three to arrive by February 2019.
Anybody understands how airbridge cargo is using LGG ?
Some days we need no flights and sometimes its a lot (today 3)
And often they decide if they land in AMS or LGG while in route it seems
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Acid-drop wrote: ↑09 Jul 2018, 08:29
Anybody understands how airbridge cargo is using LGG ?
Some days we need no flights and sometimes its a lot (today 3)
And often they decide if they land in AMS or LGG while in route it seems
Some cargo companies use one flightnumber for different routes. So when they decide to operate to the alternate destination assigned to that number flightradar24 (i.e.) will show an other route than the one being flown.
Screen Shot 2018-07-09 at 11.10.38 AM.png (114.83 KiB) Viewed 2764 times
well, FR24 is doing a good job most of the time
but today, there was 3 flights to LGG, the 4th was planed for LGG too and diverted to AMS.
It looks like they only use LGG when they can't have a slot in AMS.
but some days it's nothing, some days it's a lot
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.
Was that flight actually planned for LGG (as in, it showed up with an actual flight plan going to LGG), or was it planned for AMS, but FR24 assumed it was headed for LGG?
KriVa wrote: ↑09 Jul 2018, 14:28
Was that flight actually planned for LGG (as in, it showed up with an actual flight plan going to LGG), or was it planned for AMS, but FR24 assumed it was headed for LGG?
That doesn’t really say anything. The claim was they diverted in flight, which suggests the flight plan was to EBLG, but a diversion initiated to EHAM.
As I have often said before, FR24 does not have acces to a flightplan database, it uses flight history to come up with a route pairing.
In your example, the flight RU102 has flown twice from DFW to LGG. For FR24, it’s easy to suggest the next RU102 flight as DFW-LGG as well, even though the actual flight plan is made DFW-AMS. That’s why I asked whether the flight plan used had a destination of LGG or AMS.
If the destination was LGG and they went to AMS, that’s a diversion. If the destination in the flight plan was AMS all along, that’s another (understandable) glitch in FR24s logic.
I claim nothing. I only pointed towards the FR24 data: when you replay 2nd July there, it's clear that it wasn't a last minute diversion.
With cargo flights, it's only relevant for statistics if it was a diversion or a rerouting. And, of course, logistics need to know where the aircraft will land and where the next cargo load has to be loaded.
As to your first paragraph: Correct, you didn't claim that, I edited my post to show a more correct statement.
To the second:
Except it's not "only relevant for statistics". Just because no passengers were inconvenienced, doesn't mean there can't be more to this.
If they were to consistently file flight plans for EBLG with EHAM as alternate, and "divert" to EHAM systematically, they are basically gaming the system and circumventing the slot restrictions put in place at EHAM.
Is it something we, as a public forum, should be worried about? Of course not, but as an avgeek with quite a lot of interest (both professionally and as a hobby) in the ATM system, getting to the bottom of this sounds like fun.
Which is why, again, it would be interesting to know whether or not the flight actually diverted (and has done so on multiple occasions), or whether it's just a little glitch in the logic used by FR24.
If they were to consistently file flight plans for EBLG with EHAM as alternate, and "divert" to EHAM systematically, they are basically gaming the system and circumventing the slot restrictions put in place at EHAM.
My assumption is the opposite : they always try AMS, and when it fails, LGG is always open and ready.
But since there could be cargo moving between flights, it makes sense to group multiple flights the same day
Today is clearly a busy ABC day in LGG
My messages reflect my personal opinion which may be different than yours. I beleive a forum is made to create a debate so I encourage people to express themselves, the way they want, with the ideas they want. I expect the same understanding in return.