I recently wrote about how six Lufthansa Boeing 747-400s landed at a small airport in the Netherlands several months ago, but weren’t allowed to leave. Well, there’s now an update on that situation.
Continue reading: Six Lufthansa 747s “Stuck” At Small Dutch Airport Now Allowed To Depart
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Is this the case of AELS lobbying the local authority in an effort to not lose a potential "large order"? Did this rule change come prior to LF landing, and they were not aware of it, or did this occur after they arrived and are being held hostage?
Again, Nice 1:1 copy and paste from the German website aerotelegraph?
I thought plagiarism is a crime...
@ Matsu -- Huh?
a) "Again?"
b) I didn't see the Aerotelegraph story, and I quoted my source
c) I had written my post before the Aerotelegraph story was published, now that I look it up; it was published 17 minutes before my post, but I had completed my post over an hour prior to that
d) Even if none of the above were true, how on earth is this a "1:1 copy and paste" of that story?
If you're going to accuse me of a "crime," please try harder...
What "security risk" is posed by allowing a plane to take off? Especially one containing no passengers and operated by a major airline.
@snic - maybe in a non-secure airport facility? Crew security. Cabin search. External inspection. If there's no vendor for any of this, then there's a security risk.
Guess they're a stickler for rules... though it seems rather ridiculous you can be certified as an airport that can receive aircraft but not take off from there.
I don’t speak Dutch, but in my native language (which is quite similar to Dutch) the word for safety and security is the same. This is probably related to safety (ie. possibility of danger to surrounding area), not security (ie danger of hijacking and the likes). Google translate has uses, but also limitations.
This could easily be explained by Byzantine Dutch bureaucracy. I worked in the Netherlands for six months, applied for my work permit long before I got there, and it was issued the day after I completed my assignment and returned home.
Great article. Just two important additions:
- No aircraft of this size has ever taken off from the airport
-The inspectorate informed airport management before that these planes would not be able to take off
While I am sure the situation will be resolved, it is pretty bad PR for all parties involved.
Greetings from The Netherlands!
@Ben:
Challenge accepted. Seems to be a weak spot.
@SKF:
Thanks for the positive feedback.
An unloaded 744 can easily take off in 8,000 feet. There is no risk to the airport or surrounding area.
Moral of the story is that Lufthansa should have negotiated and papered their deal with AELS BEFORE moving the 747s to Twente. I'm sure AELS' price was above market for the job but knew that they had Lufthansa over a barrel as soon as those planes landed. I'm sure the fact that the Dutch government would benefit from taxes and fees associated with AELS' scrapping of these aircraft has been taken into consideration. COVID-19 has government's starved for tax revenue and no politically acceptable way to raise taxes on their citizens has them looking anywhere and everywhere for funds.
Having visited the ammunition bunkers there that , albiet going to ruin, still exist on the airport, as well as knowing it's military origin (used by bombers as well as fighter aircraft) this gives all appearance of being bureaucracy run amuck. A takeoff to the SouthWest would avoid built-up areas, and a lightly loaded 747 needs less runway than smaller (munition carrying) bombers at their maximum tow..
It seems that LH should have done the research before flying there. Now they are hosed.
@DLPTATL:
It's 2020, for crying out loud. Millions of things have been done without all the paperwork being used as a weapon. Are you some petty do-nothing bureaucrat that is terrified someone might realize you contribute NOTHING to any process so you root for more red tape? People like you are both disgusting and the reason people are so upset with these sorts of games they support people like Trump.
When a 747 Dreamlifter mistakenly landed at Jabara Airport instead of McConnell AFB in Wichita, it was able to take off again with no problems. Jabara's airfield is only 6101 feet.
Also, the main runway in Eugene, OR, is only 8000 feet, and the Oregon Ducks have flown chartered 747's out of EUG fully loaded with fans and entourage.
Apparently Air Force One has flown in and out of EUG also:
https://kval.com/news/local/president-air-force-one-attract-a-crowd-at-eugene-airport
@Matsu .... don’t act like a petulant toddler. Don’t go away mad - just go away!
First, president Trump has nothing to do with this so don't start that b.s.
And Matsu, go play with yourself!
The 747-400 can absolutely safely takeoff in less than 8,000ft for a ferry flight. Uses only 5 maybe 6,000 ft. Of runway to lift off and climb out safely. So this probably is some good ol dick shaking tsking place between govt. And aels.
@snic
In some languages, the word for "security" and "safety" is the same, or can be translated either way. I suspect this a Google Translate issue. The concern is actually for safety, as the article goes on to describe.
Noise abatement could also be a concern since aircraft make more noise at full power departing than at low or idle on approach and landing.
This certainly looks like a local government move to allow AELS, that is based in the Netherlands at Twente Airport, to get a substantial aircraft dismantling order that it may well have not received had this order not been in place? Maybe politics in the Netherlands is not that different than politics in the United States?
I'm curious as to what security the aircraft have been under since parked. The safety being spoken of goes beyond takeoff performance limitations.
While I acknowledge that there seems to be a political pony at play here and The Netherlands ins the land of ridiculous bureaucracy.. Its not as easy as lighting up the engines and taking off as some home pc pilots may suggest.
Engine out routes... Noise considerations, aircraft security checks etc.. This will play out but may be cheaper to leave them right where they are.
Everything is about money to all parties... Despite the cloak of safety they hide behind.
It's a good thing many of the commenter above are not widebody captains...
Yep 8000 ft that should do it
A safe departure goes beyond runway length only... One must ask have the aircraft been held securely... What maintenance is reqd pre departure.. What are the noise and or terrain issues... Granted in The Netherlands the latter is negligible.
I'm sure like most things and given as stated the overall ridiculous level of micromanagement and bureaucracy in the Netherlands its more about money and crossing the Ts and dotting the Is.
In the end probably cheaper for LF to just chop em down where they sit.
The larger story is the death of 6 queen's due to a plandemic that has unnecessarily halted global aviation.
As Sept 11, 2001 proved the concept - any large plane can be used with great effect as a flying bomb.
Unless the airfield has 24 hour armed security, fencing etc then of course there is a big difference to a plane landing there with minimal fuel vs an aircraft taking off with the full fuel load for the flight plus safety reserve.
The time it would take, if say some group did gain access to the plane & take off, to detect an issue & then respond (make a decision with consequences) would in all likelihood be too late to stop the plane flying into some high profile target.
Time (approx) from take-off to impact in:
Amsterdam = about 20 minutes max
The Hague = 23 minutes
Brussels = 34 minutes
Frankfurt = 40 minutes
Paris = 55 minutes
Berlin = 55 minutes
Safety/security is never sufficient after the event.
This is what happens when you have a society based on central planning instead of individual decisions and voluntary transactions.
Unfortunate situation but I’m quite sure when the appropriate “funds” have been handed over it will be up up and away
Wellington NZ used to be a 747-200 and 747-400 emergency diversion airport for Air NZ in the event AKL and CHC closed. Could accept any landing but not MTOW departure. Had no problems leaving for Auckland off the 6800’ runway with significantly more terrain issues than anywhere in the Netherlands
Please do no allow one of those 747s take off during maintenance accidently, then it may need to hunt a different luchthaven.
Why don't they just fly them out and pay whatever fine is issued to them? If it's more economically feasible to pay the other firm and the fine than to scrap them with AELS, just fly them out.
Though I must say that it's entertaining to watch two massively bureaucratic governments go back and forth over something so ridiculous - even if they still can't acknowledge that their own innate thirst for control is what causes these kinds of complications in the first place.
Popcorn, anyone?
@ Lucky - this fiasco has been resolved
As per Dutch NOS news website:
To summarize the Dutch article, The airport is going to get a one time exemption allowing these aircraft to take off. Has to be minimal weight, minimal fuel, several other conditions.
Don't tell Avatar Airlines about these planes!! Otherwise they could be planning making a joint venture with Lufthansa!
@Eric - You couldn't be more wrong about me or my comment. Hopefully you're in a better mood today.
@Englishder - Completely agree. Seems like someone has been adequately compensated to move things along now.
Once again European tail wagging the dog bureaucrat law making at its best. Unelected officials feeling self important enforcers of some obscure or arcane regulation that vaguely applies now but for enough money can be waved for a one time event.
Matsu, tell me where I can find your website with blogs about your passion. Is it goatlover.com? Or micropen.is?
they said the runway was too short to take off. Don't know but seems unlikely. Good that is solved now. The airport is in a rural location and not particular with enhanced security. Basically it’s only used for light aircrafts and maybe some private planes (small jets)
Nothing odd about this except the airline decision making. All aircraft have minimum runway lengths for takeoff at various weights. These have built in safety margins in case takeoff needs to be rejected before liftoff, and it is illegal for anyone to use a shorter runway.
All national aviation authorities will also give 1-time exemptions for rules where adequate alternative means of compliance are available - and some times where they are not but there is a decision taken to accept an increased risk.
In this case the planes had minimum fuel as mentioned. But they would also have had anything not required and carry only 2 crew, making them as light as possible. So they would have had non-standard takeoff speed and distance required.
It would have been an interesting exercise for the performance engineers involved.
@ Lucky
And the farce has not ended yet because there will be an investigation:
See Dutch NOS news :
https://nos.nl/artikel/2355983-onderzoek-naar-conflict-over-geparkeerde-boeings-op-twente-airport.html