EricR111

By the way, with Nassau service, would TTN become the smallest US Airport (by either number of gates or passenger enplanements) with international service?

lowfareair

Rockford, IL has service to Mexico and only several flights per day, so they are likely smaller.

EricR111

It has been almost two weeks since PBI was announced, and I was under the impression that NAS was supposed to be announced with it. Is there anybody out there that could shed light as to how serious are the obstacles being presented to F9 by the Bahamian government?

I find it hard to believe that a country so dependent on tourism would be slow to approve flights that bring more tourists, but that seems to be happening.

davywavy

It may have happened. TTN says it is official:

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2...o_bahamas.html

Frontier Airlines finalizes plans for $79 flights from Trenton-Mercer Airport to Bahamas.

It's official. Frontier Airlines will begin flying from Trenton-Mercer Airport to the Bahamas in November, marking the first time in the history of the airport that a commercial airline will offer international service, Mercer County Executive Brian Hughes said today."

Assuming it's true, perhaps Frontier will wait util tomorrow, the start of IAD service, to announce it?

EDIT: Philly.com has also announced it and says it will go on sale tomorrow, Tuesday, at 10 am.

N830MH

Can we see TTN-FPO next? Will they consider it?

davywavy

Assuming NAS goes well, then I guess FPO might be on the cards.

Any international flights from TTN are limited by US pre-clearance at the outstation and also limited by range of the aircraft from TTN. So FPO (Freeport - pre-clearance) is possible but AUA (Aruba) is not - it has pre-clearache but is presently out of range from TTN.

The only other possibilities are the nearer Canadian stations (Toronto, Montreal, etc), but then there is the problem of the high airport charges in Canada. Maybe - maybe - YHZ ((Halifax NS) as a pleasant summer getaway, but I'm not holding my breath.

Both TTN-NAS and IAD-NAS are bookable and NAS is now on the pdf version of the route map, as in this link:

http://www.flyfrontier.com/plan-book...p-8-19-14.ashx

But it isn't on the interactive route map yet.

Earthlings

exciting news that they will fly from TTN to the Bahamas.

EricR111

Supposedly, Ronson Aviation, the executive jet carrier at the airport, has its own customs set up. Perhaps Frontier could purchase their building and modify it as a terminal for international flights. As for range, I am assuming the 320-neo would have greater range on TTN's 6006 foot runway than the present generation of the A-320 family, making some of these Carribean destinations possible. (And I think you would need at least an A320 rather than A319 to make there longer flights profitable.)

Finally, I think F9 maybe should consider the Bombardier CS300 as a jetliner for use at TTN, since it is really designed for shorter runways. Specs say that it requires 6200' at MTOW, which means a range of approximately 2900 nm, while needing only 5000 ft. of runway for a 1700 nm flight, while carrying ~140 passengers. It is also supposedly more fuel efficient that the A319.

Unless of course, Boeing decides to bring back the 757.

davywavy

The A320 and especially the A319, have the range to reach anywhere in the Caribbean from TTN. Frontier uses the A319 for its very longest routes - DEN-Punta Cana, DEN-San Jose, CR and DEN-Anchorage - all about 2500 miles.

The issue isn't actually the runway length, it is - I'm told - runway clearance. There are trees and a couple of cell towers which create take-off weight problems for the aircraft. Presently, the A319 is limited to (about) 1100 miles from TTN.

The airport is starting the process of trying to have the cell towers moved:

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2...r_airport.html

"In addition, as part of the ongoing runway obstruction study, the freeholders awarded an $8,000 contract to Steel in the Air Inc. to look into the possible relocation of two cell towers at the airport.

Willmot said the specialists are needed as the county doesn’t have anyone on its professional staff with expertise in “the arduous regulations” involving relocating the towers."

The Nimbys are not thrilled, of course, seeing this as a gateway to larger (and thus in their minds noisier) aircraft.

EricR111

I can't speak for the specifics of runway requirements short of MTOW (there are all kinds of charts for that, depending on altitude) but clearly, there is a correlation between distance to be flown (hence, fuel and take off weight) and length of runway required. While clearing obstructions might allow a reduced angle of ascent, the flipside is that you will then have these planes flying even lower over the BRRAM people over Bucks County, causing even more legal and publicity headaches for the airport. Also, I cannot believe that it would add that much extra distance - I'm not an aeronautics expert, but the fuel saved by a shallower take-off angle, I would assume, would be somewhat offset by flying longer at lower altitudes, where there is more air resistance and hence more fuel required, until crusing altitude is reached.

I think a good airport to compare this to is Gibraltar, whose runway is the same length. The runway there also has an EMAS system, which has a name - it's called the Mediterranean

Given that takeoffs in either direction are over water, with no obstructions, we might get a feel for how far an Airbus goes if obstructions are not an issue. Both BA and Monarch use A320s out of Gibraltar, and the longest non-stop flight is 1,200 miles (1,043 nm) to Manchester, England. Maybe that is simply a market issue, as Gibraltar is a British territory, and there is little demand for flights elsewhere, but I think otherwise. I think it is a physical limitation, not an economic one.

Jerseyguy

From what I understand, its a safety issue. If an engine were to fail on takeoff the aircraft has to be able to clear all obstacles with only 1 engine. In order to do this they can't take as much fuel to reduce weight. If the obstacles that the plane needs to clear are lower then it can take more fuel. I'm sure they figured it would be likely to make a difference before paying for a study and experts to help them legally to remove anything.

davywavy

I'm no Tech Wallah, my understanding of aeronautics is less than perfect, I only know what is.

An A320 (with pax) can use TTN and has done so on a couple of occasions, but whether it can or not, Frontier doesn't do it.

Nor is it simply runway length. SNA - Orange County airport - has a shorter runway (5800 ft) and has longer flights, even sometimes transcons.

The A319 has good short field performance, but I am told the issue is runway obstruction, specifically the cell towers. And surely, at least one Freeholder sees the relocation of the towers as the gate to larger aircraft.

EricR111

Orange County has longer flights, but those are using 737-700s (the former Continental used to use 757s, I believe), which can operate farther off short runways. And of course, going west-to-east, the planes have the advantage of a tailwind.

davywavy

Delta still used the 757 SNA-ATL (1900 miles), the point being that SNA has no limiting obstructions, as TTN does.

I doubt they would be considering the complicated process of relocating the cell towers unless it were considered necessary.

davywavy

Delta still used the 757 SNA-ATL (1900 miles), the point being that SNA has no limiting obstructions, as TTN does.

I doubt they would be considering the complicated process of relocating the cell towers at TTN unless it were considered necessary for more effective use of the aircraft/airport.