Quote: "This Government is a complete joke. Every minister has a different policy on the 3rd runway. Osborne Yes, Cable says no. You'd think they would have a common policy.
We All know what the 3 year report will say. It's all tacticle politics running up to the next general election. This is the next T5, years of pointless reports And good old British red tape. By the time it's built it's still not enough."
Well, that's coalition politics, there is no question that Cameron should have formed a minority government. A more experienced political operator (e.g. Harold Wilson) would have realised this.
Quote: "Someone needs to stand up and do what's best for Our country. Stop with the bullshit."
Correct. A more experienced politician in Cameron's position would not have revoked Labour's permission for a third rwy (2009) and let them take any flak that may or may not be forthcoming. Pretty obvious really!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 9th Sep 2012 at 20:40.
This one seems to have gone under the radar but the ET710 / 711 tonight was a B787 which, I think, may have been the first scheduled commercial service to the UK? I wondered why there were a load of spotters out for a cloudy Monday evening. It was of course very late and arrived in darkness some three hours later! Looked awesome coming down the 27R approach, those slow on/off anti collision lights are very distinctive.
Allegedly Boris is running his own inquiry as well, and finacing a referendum on the third rwy in Richmond.
If one examines the army of very highly paid managers and the bureaucracy of equally well-paid deputy mayors, accountants, lawyers and paper shufflers that accompanies the Greater London Assembly/City Hall set up, the public may conclude that Boris is good at wasting ratepayers' money.
PS To avoid party political points, the same may also be said for his predecessor, Ken.
Until the powers that be destroy Heathrow with their dithering..It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrows capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being.
Last edited by Ernest Lanc's; 22nd Sep 2012 at 20:08.
It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrow's capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being.
It would indeed, to the tune of about 60,000 extra movements a year.
Forgive my ignorance as I don't live near heathrow and if I'm near I tend to be driving so can't watch the planes etc . But do they not already have one runway for landings and one for take offs at the same time ? After all they ate quite far apart So surely no danger of conflicts ?
Currently, LHR uses one runway for departures and one for landings, so as to spread the noise of approach and departures. The alternations depend on a weekly rota and, of course, the wind direction.
Currently, in the early morning, both runways are used for landings simultaneously due to the large number of long haul arrivals. Not to mention that the airport cannot operate
During the main part of the day, if there are ten a/c waiting to depart but only three due to land. The ten have to queue one behind the other and the 'landing' runway goes unused.
During the main part of the day, if there are ten a/c waiting to depart but only three due to land. The ten have to queue one behind the other and the 'landing' runway goes unused.
There are two fixed periods, 7-3 and 3-11 where one runway is designated for arriving and the other for departing. After 11 and up to 6am, one runway is used for both arrivals and departures amd the other is closed. However in practice, when the Southern runway is used for departures, a fair few arrivals are landed as well, as it's much easier for T4. I have rarely if ever seen the approach to the landing runway empty, even late at night there's generally four on the approach.
Thanks for confirmation SOE, I was plucking numbers for the example but did think I'd never seen the approach 'empty'. Mebbe they need another runway ...
Good point PAXBoy! Actually I have never seen the approach empty except when changing runways but I have seen the departure runway with nothing at the holding point last winter on a Sunday afternoon. As soon as I did the double take, I saw a couple of aircraft heading there but there was no queue at the hold. Traffic flow can have some odd peaks and troughs!
Quote: "Until the powers that be destroy Heathrow with their dithering..It might increase capacity, if the agreement not to use the runways in mixed mode which is damping Heathrows capacity as a two runway airport, was shelved for the time being."
Indeed this is the case. Mixed mode can, apparently, increase capacity by about 10%, allowing Heathrow to squeeze a quart out of a pint pot, so it is only a stop gap remedy. It does present another problem: running an airport at 110+% capacity.
In the absence of rwy expansion, it is the only way that capacity can be marginally increased. However, the amount of congestion and delays will increase substantially, both on the ground and in the air.
At present, mixed mode will only be allowed at times of "disruption" and to clear "backlogs". So what does this tell us? It tells us that mixed mode will slowly increase by stealth until or unless rwy expansion is completed.
Mixed mode will end the daily half-day of quiet for those who live under the flightpath that is curently provided by segregated mode and rwy alternation, so residents are unlikely to be very happy about it.
Those under the current flightpaths have a choice: support rwy expansion and have the status quo prevail for them (i.e. a daily half-day of quiet) or object to rwy expansion and lose this. It's really quite simple.
Ironically, it appears that if the small vocal anti-expansion NIMBY lobby are sucessful in their efforts, residents under the flightpath will actually have more noise not less!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 23rd Sep 2012 at 20:03.
In the absence of rwy expansion, it is the only way that capacity can be marginally increased. However, the amount of congestion and delays will increase substantially, both on the ground and in the air.
You have missed out one assumption that's implicit in your scenario.
Increased capacity can be applied in either (or both) of two different ways.
If traffic is increased in line with capacity, in other words if LHR continues to operate at 99%, then delays and congestion would undoubtedly increase.
If, on the other hand, capacity is increased but traffic isn't (or at least not by the same amount) then the result is more resilience, because the airport is no longer operating at 99%, and so not only are delays and congestion reduced, but when they do occur the airport is able to recover more rapidly.
The latter, of course, is precisely what is being done with the current mixed mode trials. Having said that, the conclusions and consequences of the trial may well turn out to be as you forecast.
I watched a documentary on YouTube the other night from 1989/90 ish and while it was about the railways called " off the rails " , the real eye opener and worrying thing is was the fact that in 22 years of mainly Tory rule nothing has changed , the program spoke of how Britain looked poor to the rest of Europe as it had no HS link to the new tunnel , Infrastructure was grinding to a halt as was London . Here we are in 2012 STILL dithering about the HS links and the exact same story with airports . It seems that the only sensible solution is to look at a new site close to motorway links , which in themselves have the parallel land needed to widen them to take traffic generated by a new four runway airport with room for more , And build some kind of rapid transit link into London . Now do we use upper Hertford or alternatively is it possible to turn it round altogether can gatwick or stansted be expanded to ' super airport status ' and turn heathrow into some kind of domestic /low cost airport with a very high speed link to say gatwick. Turning the idea on its head downgrading heathrow and making either of the others ' super hubs '
If the authorites want Mixed Mode to be a success, they will need to provide concrete proposals to residents around Heathrow which will lessen their opposition to it.
1) Only allowing mixed mode between the hours of 8am to 9pm 2) 9pm to 8am daily, only one runway allowed for landings and the other for take-offs which will alternate from week to week as it does now 3) No increase in night flights 4) No third runway
Speaking with residents in the community meetings in the Brentford area of West London, this seems to be a consensus.
Interesting about T4 arrivals....so if and when R3 and T6 get built you might expect choice of runway to be determined more by terminal proximity than by other considerations (hence more mixed use?)
