Additional movements at Heathrow

[WHBM]

I see that when the summer schedules start at the end of March, there will be more additions at Heathrow. Emirates with a fourth flight, American with a second LAX flight, Air India new services, Etihad and China Eastern starting, doubtless others. But no compensating services seem to have been dropped.

And yet the place is already plagued with holding delays for inbound flights, and an ever increasing number of ground holds waiting for stands. Knowing BAA's only real interest nowadays is in retail shop turnover, not the operational side, is this not just inviting further problems ? What makes the Scheduling Committee think they can handle extra movements ?

[Musket90]

It could be that the slots are not extra but that some slot trading between airlines has been going on.

[Bagso]

...could be that they came from other airports like Manchester !

See Cathay Pacific....!

Dont worry keep cramming 'em in and we will soon have a mid- air over London !

[Air_Dream]

Nigerian Airlines were evicted from their offices in Terminal 3 South Wing Building so an empty slot there and remember Gulf Air get an extra flight in summer too bumping it up from 4 flights to 5 flights from LHR - GF002, GF004, GF006, GF008 and the new flight GF012.

Qatar airways I think is also increasing their frequency from LHR as is Etihad after their inital startup.

They have reopened Gate 23 in T3 which was closed for pier reconstruction (I think) and to tell you the truth, most of the extra flights which are coming in are night flights, going out of LHR.

Only half the number of Gates at 2130 to 2300 are usually full with A/C. For example Gulf Air run the GF6 at 2030 and GF8 at 2200 with an extra slot for 2235 from the 28th March. Etihad's single flight days depart 2115 and Qatar Airways (I think) is an evening flight.

[Jerricho]

Dont worry keep cramming 'em in and we will soon have a mid- air over London !

Nice attitude. I'm sure there will be a few people in these parts that would take exception to that.

[rutankrd]

The prevailing belief is that LHR is truely full and ALL slots are used.
This is infact not the case as there are still slack periods in the day admittedly off peak when the arrival runway CAN handle the additional summer schedules !
Its these times when the airlines with just a few flights a week typically North African can be accomodated with ease !
So there is room for Eithad , Gulf Air and China Eastern without cutting back elsewher still!

[xyz_pilot]

rutankrd

You say there is space (time) on the arrival runway. Dose this mean that at LHR the arrivals are more limiting than the departures?

[iceman51]

To the best of my understanding, the answer is that slots at LHR are for sure scarce, but mainly in consideration of the "political" use of the runways, i.e. the alternative use of the runways either for landing or departing a/c only.

Some years ago I was in contact with a Director of VS, and he was pointing out that slots at LHR could easily be increased up to a 20% simply by using both runways simultaneously for departing and landing aircraft (VS was chasing slots at LHR like everybody). As far safety is concerned, he was also of the opinion that the proposed mixed use would not cause any additional risk to the present situation, and - actually - approaching aircraft should benefit not only from a bigger distance between them but also from an additional lateral separation. In a nutshell, he was suggesting a more flexible and intelligent use of the two rwys.

The local communities of course believe that they are better off - from the noise point of view - with the actual scheme and, unfortunately, politicians do the rest ...

Can anybody make comments on the above?

[Gonzo]

Rutankrd....Interesting viewpoint. Not sure I'd agree with you. Ok, it slackens off inbound after 2145, but bear in mind that those that do arrive at that time and plan to fly out again are very often pushed for time when it comes to getting out of LHR before the night noise period!

xyz_pilot,

We usually do about 40-45 arrivals per hour. If the traffic mix is right, we can get up past 50 departures per hour.

Iceman51,

Mixed mode operations will not work at the moment, for many reasons. A few of them.....

Firstly, there are simply not enough stands to park the extra 20% inbounds on.

You either approach it one of two ways.......all T2 and T4 traffic uses the southerly runway, and T1 and T3 use the northerly runway, which makes ground just about manageable, but what happens when a southbound departs 27R followed by a northbound off 27L? To make that work we'd have to fire them out on headings and get rid of the incredibly politically sensitive Standard Instrument Departures that include minimum noise routes. And also I can't imagine our radar guys would look forward to getting a/c approaching from the south onto the northerly ILS through those a/c approaching from the north going for the southerly ILS. That sort of stuff makes you grow old very quickly.

The other method is to have anything approaching from, and departing to, the north use the northerly runway, and a/c approaching from, and departing to, the south use the southerly runway. In that case, I reckon it'll be about twenty minutes before all the taxiways grind to a halt because we simply don't have enough concrete.

approaching aircraft should benefit not only from a bigger distance between them but also from an additional lateral separation

The distance between them on the ILS will of course increase to about 6 miles in trail, but don't forget you have to get a departure away in that gap......also, they'd still only be three miles away from the aircraft who's on the other runway's ILS.

[iceman51]

Gonzo

Thks for you very interesting points, but - again - you are in the end confirming that LHR capacity is artificially capped:

- on the ground (taxiways, standsetc.)
- in the air (SID to be re-written, different policy for approaches

and above all ... politically!

I did not want to give the impression that a 20% increase in movements at LHR could be achieved overnight, but I just wanted to open up this subject and draw some attention to it.

If the politicians really want to keep LHR's role up to the requirements of the market it should deserve (with all the relevant economics benefits!), they should or better to say must consider mixed mode operations at LHR, and start to use a brand new sheet of paper to project, draft and implement this alternative use of the runways (also keeping in mind that cross winds at LHR are not so uncommon, and that the existing cross rwy should be kept operational).

[Jerricho]

Iceman, the ground environment at Heathrow isn't an artifical cap to movements. It is a physical reality. At the moment, the ground is a major limiting factor.

First thing in the morning when both runways are use for arrivals for the post curfew rush, T4 can fill up very quickly, thus leading to requests from the tower for increased spacing to the runway, or heaven help, T4 traffic landing on the north runway, and having to get down south. And when the departures start moving around 0630.

And reference good old RWY 23 for major crosswinds (only from the south mind you, and over the past 6 months, I have seen some hellish winds from the north! And remember, it doesn't have an ILS.), I'm sure my former Tower colleague will be far better informed to describe what it does to the ground environment, as it means the loss of parking stands as well as a taxi route.

The best thing for Heathrow - Nuke it and start again!!! :p

[Gonzo]

Iceman,

As much as it pains me so, I'm going to have to agree with Jerricho.....more a physical reality than artificial.......There is actually nowhere any more taxiways could go. Even though we'll get more stands with T5, the taxiways weill actually be more restricted because of wingtip clearance of the A380.

I understand where you say that the capacity of LHR is capped artificially......yes, if we took a busy hour of 90 movements, and did that for every hour, we could get 2100 a day rather than 1350. Trouble is we (as a tower, but applies to our Approach guys at Terminal Control, and also London Centre, and the neighbouring centres also) don't have the staff even if all the noise restrictions went out the window......for example, we usually have maybe 10 or eleven controllers on shift during the peak hours of the day......overnight we have three.

Using 23 actually decreased the movement rate. I forecast that it will never ever be used as a runway again.

[Air_Dream]

23 is the runway which crosses the main two right? if so, i saw an AA jet land there about 2 weeks ago.

[iceman51]

Gonzo/Jerricho

sorry for having misleaded you writing "artificially capped". probably, I should not have used "artifically", but "voluntarily"!

What I meant was simply that politician, BAA, etc. are not giving LHR the attention it really deserves (but this is probably a problem common to many airports all over the world).

BAA, for example and I believe I am pretty sure, is by far more concerned in having T5 opening asap and its retailers running their cash teller at the maximum (actually, considering the increasing time tha paxs wander in a terminal, I woul suggest BAA to install slot machines in all passenger area!). :O New taxyways, different taxyway layouts, etc., are ranking in the bottom section of their priority list. BAA for sure will fixthe problems arising form having A-380s on the tarmac at LHR, but with minimum possible investment (i.e. money) required.

Politicians? For them LHR is a terrible headache, a very big-big problem. So the cure is ... try to look at it as much later as possible (sorry, when next elections are due in the area?).

So BAA in a win-win position ($, £, euro, whatever currency is welcome!), politicians in the usual "political" situation they love so much ..., and the losers are ... the pilots and the ATC people!

Possibly - as Jerricho wrote - the best thing for LHR is: Nuke it and start again!!! :ok:

P.S.: my personal airport black list ranks LHR numers three after MXP (by far in pole position) and FCO.

[Jerricho]

23 is the runway which crosses the main two right? if so, i saw an AA jet land there about 2 weeks ago.

Ummmm, last time I checked, there was a huge hole in it. Gonze??? (And you agreed with me.......hahahahahhahaha! ;) )

Ice - Your very right. As I see it, Heathrow is it's own worst enemy. Unfortunately it is a pure lack of surrounding space and abilty to physically expand the ground area (with T5, there isn't much more room on that block of land, is there?). If we look at the proposal of the new '3rd runway', the land that is being "reclaimed"is causing the expansion lobby to jump up and down (now, we'll not get into the old NIMBY argument will we!). Poor little airport.

[Gonzo]

No hole in it anymore, but the beginnings of our tower is still there off the end of it meaning it can't be used.

[Mark Lewis]

AA only operate 777s and 767s into LHR, surely even if 23 was open 2 weeks ago (Which it was not) then the runway would have been too short to take a plane of that size?

[Jerricho]

The only time I say 23 in operation the head wind into it was 35/40 kts on the ground. I've seen a JAL 747-200 make an approach for it (he sent himself around due wnidshear). If 23 was promulgated, you knew it wasn't going to be a good day to give up sniffing glue.

[Gonzo]

23 would only be active if the crosswind on the usual runways are 25kts mean. So you start with a 20kts+ headwind. 1962m....long enough, I reckon.