Is LHR the world's worst airport when it comes to delayed arrivals?

A someone who spent most of his life engaged in that problem I'd be glad to know what prompted the question.

HD, as someone who uses LHR a lot I think I know what he means, but I don't agree with his inference.
Let me explain.

I've heard it said before by other pilots (over a beer) that LHR is worst for regular arrival delays. Its true in my experience that - depending on time of day - a flight will typically experience a holding delay of between 5 and 20 minutes.
The flip side of that is what happens at other airports.
In other airports you may never be held, but you may be given large speed reductions many miles out, you may be vectored all round the sky to add further delay, then you get told to speed up again and are thrown at the approach.
You often get the feeling that things are not being very well planned or executed by the controllers.
Unlike at LHR.

I personally far prefer to be mostly left to follow the SID (including its speed controls) into LHR, and advised of a reliable EAT on contacting approach on my way toward BNN (etc) and allowed the discretion of reducing speed in an orderly and effective manner. I prefer it because it allows me to get my height off in a predictable manner - per the TOD point I selected. I prefer it because there is no damn silly vectoring all over the sky which adds to RF clutter and creates potential for TCAS RA's (or worse) if a mistake is made.

No, give me a few minutes orderly and predictable holding delay at LHR anytime over the chaos that reigns in places like ORD or JFK.

You guys in LHR are stars, and set the benchmark by which I judge every other airport.
Nobody else reaches it either.:ok:

No debate...... LHR!!!

TBE

I would like to remind all reading that a delay of 20 minutes or less is actually classed as NO DELAY.

Flow control attempts to get a manageable amount of aircraft into the stacks (ie some going around in circles) so that the Approach Controllers can pick a suitable landing order to achieve maximum runway useage. If you didn't hold then someone else will be doing so for longer at a different time of day, but thats life at a busy airport.

Ever flown into Charles-De-Gaulle in the morning?????

Is there a source for stats. with regards to arrival delays at European airports?

It's obvious from your words that you've never done a triple approach into DEN nor a quad into DFW.

I'd recommend that you chuck that benchmark that you are using to judge other airports and obtain a new benchmark for yourself:)

I envison a future traffic shift away from LHR to Europe because of the LHR arrival delay problem.

I'm really confused here.

Your post over on rumour and news states "Source : AEA", and are over here as well?

Yes, holding is common in the London Terminal area. Unfortunately it has a great deal to do with very limited airspace and the proximity of other airfields. Flights are not, as maxalt very accurately explains, vectored for massive downwinds, chopped and changed with speeds and have the runway change on them several time.

HOWEVER, I'm very curious as to the actual affects on arrival times.

Flying to LHR is costing airlines a fortune with arrival delays
as well as outrageous ground costs.

It's time to hub on the Continent instead of an island.

I remember ALWAYS being late at Dublin.

Paris Charles De Gaulle is the same. Orly is OK. And I've never been delayed at Lyon.

Excuse my ignorance, but aren't there some hubs on the continent alread? Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, just to name a few?

Oh, and regarding EGLL, I faintly remember that situation to be since over 30 years. Strange enough airlines still want to go there and even risk bilateral agreements to be cancelled just to get into that particular airport. According to your argumentation these airlines must all be very stupid, aren't they?

Unmanned,

With all due respect, this appears to be the latest in your long line of LHR bashing threads. Looking back through your previous posts, you seem to want LHR to be overtaken by some mythical continental hub. Surely public opinion has LHR where it is, as the major hub for all transatlantic ops? Not to mention the considerably cheaper fares most airlines offer to operate through LHR.

My own airline operates a feeder to LHR for pax not willing to pay upwards of 30-40% more to fly direct. Why oh why should they overfly LHR to go to FRA/CDG etc?

By the way, I was thrilled to see your "Usa=best" post deleted on sunday night!

(edited for crappy spelling)

I think it's high time Unmanned told us his ideas for improving the Heathrow movement rate.

Come on, Unmanned... tell us how to improve the Heathrow movement rate..

Building airports on islands bad? Pity someone didn't tell HKG :D

What a load of trolling crap the parent post is. :yuk:

If it read "it's time gov.uk put the UK interest in having a top-10 airport ahead of nimbys and built more runways at LHR" I suppose it would make more sense :D :D :D :D

Come on, Unmanned... tell us how to improve the Heathrow movement rate..
*************************************************

A couple more parallel rwys with sufficient separation for quad approaches/departures like DFW or DEN. would work wonders for the ole gal.

Unmanned,

As someone who has spent vast amounts of time trying to support the arguments for better use of the existing runway here at Coventry, much to the chagrin of the local nimbys, pray do tell us how you would propose getting your runway plans past the 100 year long public inquiry which they would need to get approval.

By the time they got built, we would all be travelling about by space hopper.

OK, unmanned [great name btw], you have four parallel r/ws for LHR.....fine. Now, silly question I know, but just where do you put the stacks? or more to the point, where do the stacks for EGGW,EGKK,EGLF etc go?
watp,iktch

where do you put the stacks?
************************

Most likely stacking would not be required if triple or quad simultaneous approaches/departs were in order. But, lateral rwy separation distance would be a major factor to implement at LHR.

Anyone know if CDG has triple ldg/t-off capability?

Most likely stacking would not be required if triple or quad simultaneous approaches/departs were in order

Absolute rubbish.

Unmanned, your posts reek of an "armchair expert" who has little to no concept about what they are talking about.

Have you ever actually been to Heathrow airport? Have you noticed how little land is actually available around the place (the proposed area for the third parallel runway won't allow for a 3000m plus runway like the existing two). As has been pointed out to you before (and you've conveniently forgotten or ignored) the London Terminal Area's airspace is very restricted (especially given the proximity of the airfields Chiglet has begun to list).

You also mention multiple approaches/departures (dare I use the words "mixed mode"). Talk to anybody who currently works in Heathrow Tower how congested the ground environment can get. And once again would you like to take a guess why? LIMITED SPACE. You love to wave that "Oh, this is how it's done at DFW or DEN". Once upon a time Heathrow did have more than the existing 09/27 Left and Right. Why not now? Because they have run out of room.

I have said this before. Heathrow is it's own worse enemy. The population of that dinky little island off the coast of France is sizeable and densely packed around that particular airport (and it's not helped by the truck loads of colonials running backwards and forwards ;) ). Hunter rightly states that places like Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris already exist as hubs. You've mentioned on another thread you "envison a future traffic shift away from LHR to Europe because of the LHR arrival delay problem.". Not sure of numbers, but at what capacity are these places running at the moment?

How about you give it a rest or start providing some sensible input?

I've just been doing a little hunt around.

I don't think Unmanned has started this thread in Dunnunda and God's...........yet.

I only fly into LHR 6 or 7 times a year. We are usually early but after a few laps generally land on sked. The usual delay is for a gate that someone else is late off.

What is the current saturation per hour number for LHR?
(max arrivals for each hour).

I suppose the reason for all the stacks that ya got going over there is because of all the one runwayed airstrips around the London area. (Gatwick, Stanstead, Luton).

It would appear that rwy development has not kept up with the times.

Surely the question should be 'Which airport has the worst Arrival delays aginst Pax numbers?' Surely the larger the airport and the amount of slots the more delay you will get?

Are we actually arriving late??

Do airlines such as BA take holding times into account when publishing STA's.
I flew in from Delhi with BA last week, into a head wind (9hrs in the air), we then held for 20 minutes and had a 25 minute taxi onto stand - STILL ARRIVED ON STAND ON TIME.

BA must be extending their scheduled sector times to account for the holds, because lets face it a hold is always probable at Heathrow.

:cool:

Reasonable airlines (meaning such with experienced professionals in scheduling and not college freshmen) do actually take such things like expected holdings and/or long taxi times into consideration for their schedules.

DEN or DFW are good examples as depending on where you land your taxi time might well be over 20 minutes (unless you wnat a nice discussion with the chief pilot of why it is that after you land there chronically the front wheels need to be changed).

Coming back to congestion, FRA is no better than LHR (with the exeption that there are not a multitude of other airports around it), AMS had to add that 'polderbaan' wich is almost a separate airport (happy taxi times) and CDG did not drastically increase their capacity with the two new paralells. They could build a fifth in case of, but right now that is not needed, and also they have some limitations due to airspace, although not as bad as LHR. Their real problem starts on the ground. Ever tried to connect form T1 to T2? You are probably faster connecting from CDG to ORY...:)

SPeaking of congestion, there is one airport I know that is heavily congested for about 5 hours of the day, otherwise it is almost empty. They have 4 Runways but also a complex airspace structure, and strange enough still people want to go there although it is a dreadful airport to arrive at and depart from. Which one? Ever been to JFK???

Well, hvaing said that, Unmanned, you have to understand that people WILL use the airport of THEIR conveninace,a dn they don't care a thing about a holding or two, what they care about is if they will land on time (as published), get to the city (that's what you have the blue line for) or to the connecting flight. The rest, the public does not give any second of thought. That is an academic question for the pilots and trhe airlines, nothing less nothing more.

So you can try to continue to bash LHR and BA as you like to do, but it will not change a thing.

I suppose the reason for all the stacks that ya got going over there is because of all the one runwayed airstrips around the London area.

Once again, you're just displaying your ignorance. I'll help you again..........LACK OF AIRSPACE.

Not only do you fail to answer any question or even attempt to enter into intellignent discussion, you just keep sprouting crap. You wouldn't be a politician perchance? I must admit, that is some excellent trolling you're doing there.

YHBT YHL HAND

:E

LACK OF AIRSPACE - in my opinion correct.

Look at the London area, you have Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, and even Manston in a very small radius - look at the size of the UK compared to America.
When you compare areas like this against say DFW, I am sorry but it just doesn't compare. The airspace americans have to play with is VAST.
In my opinion you have to give credit to the London area controllers, who live up to their name as being amongst the best in the world.

:ok:

Bring on the slating :E

What is the current saturation per hour number for LHR?
(max arrivals for each hour).

Surely the question should be 'Which airport has the worst Arrival delays aginst Pax numbers?'
***************************************************
Still waiting for an answer with regards to max arrivals/hr for LHR.

And data to prove that LHR is the 'worst' European hub for arrival delays.

Let's not muddy things up by mixing Pax #s and delays.

So a half hour hold in a stack prior to wheels at the gate is not classified as a delay?
In my book it sure is.

6 flts/dayX1/2 hour = 1095 hrs/year of additional expense.
(fuel, crew, AC hrs; etc)

The London area is a congested mess with 3 airports having one runway each and 1 airport having 2 runways all in close proximity and stacks of traffic waiting to be slotted in to land.

Still waiting for an answer with regards to max arrivals/hr for LHR.

On a good day, with the right met and wind conditions, I have seen the predicted landing rate for the landing runway up around 48 per hour (using 2.5 mile spacing on final). Of course, when you start throwing heavies into the equation, and the wake turbulence spacing on final can stuff this right up.

Unmanned, have you thought any more about what HD asked you reference your enlightened methods of improving the movement rate? Let's see......more runways ain't going to cut it.

So what's the answer?

Fly from Europe instead? How, pray tell, does everyone get there? Fly, drive or walk? Get real.

Quote:The London area is a congested mess with 3 airports having one runway each and 1 airport having 2 runways all in close proximity and stacks of traffic waiting to be slotted in to land.

So what do we do close them down and start again?

I know lets build Maplin. It's in the sea won't affect anybody. Oh except the LTMA inbounds through Clacton and the Dover departures. But that doesn't matter because this is such a great idea.

Sarcasm machine off

Yes it's a mess but only because people want to fly. When they realise that there is such a waste then something may be done. At the moment the only way to stop so much holding in the air is to hold on the ground. It's called flow control and despite it being the biggest pain in the backside at times it does work (generally). I can assure you that no ATCO wants to hold anybody as the sooner you are out of their hair the quicker we can move onto something else and the potential airprox has gone away.

Phew!!

:D :D :D

Yes, and still everybody wants to go there...

A delay is anything that makes the aircraft land more than 15 minutes after the published arrival time. How you fly it and whether you make some extra turns or not does not matter at all.

Your book is irrelevant.

Relevant are:
- what the passenger wants (apparently they want to got to London)
- how the IATA definitions for delays and their identifications are (you can make up your own, but nobody will use them)

And you should get the London area correct. There are many more runways around. There are about 25 surfaces able to handle air traffic movements (meaning take off and landings) in the London area. I thought that you, as a 'professional London/BA/etc - basher' should know such details much better. Apparently you lack of knowledge...

WindShear, look at the New York City area. Four very busy airports, EWR, JFK, LGA and TEB. Some have only one or two "real" runways. How much of the time do they have airborne holds? At least for domestic arrivals to EWR and LGA, my guess is not often. The reason is Ground Hold / Ground Delay at departiure airports. Planes are not allowed to take off for these destinations until there is a reasonable chance of landing without holding.

I'll agree that the arrivals from far overseas are harder to control to avoid airborne holding.

Look at these sites to get some idea of the US situation:
http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/usmap.jsp
http://www4.passur.com/lga.html you'll often see the arrivals queue stretch back to Philadelphia for LGA. The racetracks, if they exist, are more than 80 miles away. Note how gaps are left to fit in arrivals from very different directions.
Substitute EWR, JFK or TEB for LGA to highlight their traffic. The arrival queues for EWR and TEB turn and are mostly west of the airposts. Things sometimes seem less clear at JFK.

There are similar passur sites for LAX and some other Los Angeles area airports (SAN, etc).

As a naive outsider. I ask if Europe has the concept of Ground Holds. What about Canada, Mr. Jerricho in Icytoba?

I ask if Europe has the concept of Ground Holds

If Flowman happens to read this he will be able to shed more light, but the simple answer to your question Seacue is yes. Flow restrictions for the entire European airspace are often in force. The all mighty "Slot times" are used as well (and the dreaded zero flow rate the gets slapped down when a runway is lost etc). In Canada similar flow restrictions exist (from my experience it's been mainly Toronto) that also keep aircraft on the ground. I remember a couple of years ago being sitting on the ground in Narita because we missed our slot into Heathrow.

The unfortunate thing with Heathrow is that is can be ticking over quite nicely then, for whatever reason (FOD on runway causing a few go-arounds etc) can cause a blow out of holding out of nowhere.

You mention the New York airspace. From what I have seen and had explained to me, their traffic is streamed in trailmiles and miles away, and are run into rather long down-winds, rather than being spun around a hold (have I over-simplified this?). Once again, going back to the poor old London Terminal Airspace, you run out of room very quickly.

*sigh* Mr Unhinged does go on a bit doesn't he?

There is a perfectly valid database of delays at European hubs published by the AEA, as it happens in their last report (Jul-Sep 04) LHR was bottom of the list for arrival delays on European flights.

A little bird tells me that AEA will publish their 2004 figures in a day or two and LHR will *not* be the worst in Europe for arrival delays - close but no cigar.

42 an hour is an average inbound flow rate.

I can remember going into Orlando on a Britannia jumpseat (before 9/11). We had four runway changes in the last 15 minutes, the last was at 3 miles because a departing a/c was lined up ahead of us. We had our first speed reduction and descent with 400 miles to go. If that method was adopted over here airspace capacity would halve, if not worse.

If the AEA 'delay arrival data' is based on the info that 5milebaby noted in his thread "I would like to remind all reading that a delay of 20 minutes or less is actually classed as NO DELAY". then the data is flawed.

Bottom line guys, your airports around London need a major updating with regards to laying more concrete.....more rwys. to alleviate that traffic maze.

I'd hate to have to fly my RC 114TC thru that airspace.

unmanned transport

Your obviously not from our shores and from what i can see, your just envious of the way our air traffic control system magnificently handles an increasingly difficult situation, handling traffic from 5 very busy airports (LHR, LGW, LTN, STN, LCY and also the up and coming MSE) in such a small area of space. You keep going on about DEN and DFW but the area they have to handle their traffic in is probably not much different to the area LATCC have to handle the traffic for 5 different and very busy airports! Well done to the guys in LATCC for their excellent work in whats probably a very difficult and extremely busy enviroment!

Bottom line guys, your airports around London need a major updating with regards to laying more concrete

You have to laugh at this guy. :rolleyes: Have you actually read ANY of what has been posted above. I really don't think so!!!

Yeah, I have to agree, Jerricho, he seems to have an uncanny knack of glossing over the bits he doesn't agree with. Maybe he's a politician?

Unmanned, one question. I have frequently been put in a ground hold in ORD, in a pen, for upwards of 30-45 mins. Do you think another Rwy would alleviate that? Perhaps more parallel runways?

Get it into your head - there is no space in London for more Runways. LATCC do an unbelieveable job controlling all these major airports in a limited bit of airspace. Passengers will always choose to fly from where they want to fly, not from where you say they might be better flying from.

Now, it must be time for you to start (yet) another LHR bashing, or US is best thread. Go on, surprise us!

US airports seem to be worst for Random ie unexpected delays. Going into MIA the other day ATC decide the HEATT 6 Arr is too busy so we have to go to Freeport in the Bahamas to start another arrival. Adding 120nm to the routing, they then descended us 200nm before our planned TOD, slowed us down at FL300, and we landed with much less than planned fuel and 20 mins extra flight time. At least at LHR you know whats happening, and can plan accordingly. And delays are rarely more than 20 mins unless wx steps in.

Unmanned

btw, the FAA uses the same concept to measure delays. So what's the problem with that.

Besides having flown your 114TC, do you have any airline experience? Been involved in planning and flying the tincans in and out of strange places (LHR does not count as such)? Something tells me, no...

I remember when th airline I used to work for started to fly into EWR. You could be counted as lucky if they did have you above FL210 over ALB. We had to add extra fuel in the plan for (I am quoting) 'long and low approach sequencing', that was an extra 5000 kgs or so (one hours worth of flying!). We also had to add some 15 minutes to block time. 12 Miles more than JFK but 20 Minutes more flying...

So I'd rather have my airplanes do a couple of loops higher up with optimum speed than to drag them in low alts with an enormous fuel burn...

Or to make this in a little comparison. If I start here from home (Switzerland) to go to LHR, in the system here I climb to the higher 300s, in the US system I'd be lucky to get higher than FL250. Guess for that additional fuel I can do quite some holds without problem.

But I guess you will not read this anyway...

Much as our dear unmanned is unable to read what is posted to him, he (or she) does have one valid point: Lack of runways. No, not at the existing sites; what London reallly needs is a new airport linked by high-speed trains to central London. Somewhere out in the sticks, except that there's not really that much in the way of sticks in southern England.

Whatever happened to the idea of building a new airport in the Thames estuary(sp)? Could a newly constructed, and properly dimensioned, airport have the effect of eliminating one or more of the existing London airports, thereby freeing up airspace? Say London Thames airport opens the day LHR, LTN and LGW closes.

Rant Mode On

First of all, outlaw Nimby's or at least take away their right to fly - that should shut them up. Alternatively, tell them that you're going to build an airport right here; don't ask for their opinion. Then offer to buy their houses at market rate, and if they refuse (and the house is in the way) transfer the money to their account and drive them out with the help of the plod. If a house is deemed to be merely in the vicinity, offer to buy the house at market rate and if they refuse, make them sign a waiver that they'll never, ever, bitch about noise or pullution. Stop being so bloody PC and join the 21st century guys! England has had a booming economy for the better part of a decade; it's the financial heart of Europe; London is the second most visited town in Europe (Paris still no. 1 I belive) and so on and so forth. There is absolutely no reason except for inane PC nonsense for someone not to say "Right, chaps, here's the deal and if it'll cost Mrs Higgens the loss of view of the channel, and possible disturb a few migrating pidgeons, so be it. Building starts tomorrow, see you back in 5 years".

At the very least, someone should do the merciful thing and dynamite terminals 1, 2 and 3 at their earliest inconvenience. Those dreadful places does very little good to the general UK reputation. Then hire someone who not only understand how airports are supposed to work, the bit where the passengers roam around mind you, but who also have an understanding of aestetics. You will also need to tell the BAA that they are supposed to run an airport, not a shopping mall.

But before a new terminal complex is constructed, make sure you plan for proper links to T4 and T5; bussing pax around is neither efficient nor economical. And it certainly ain't fun!

They should also do away with the signs telling people that being abusive or violent to security/immigration/costums staff is a crime. Yes, and when you jump in the ocean you get wet. I have a real problem beliving the UK public is so dim as to need a sign telling them that violence is a crime. And if it's for the Johnny foreigner, well, feck 'em! Lock 'em up, fine 'em in cash and return 'em on firav.


Rant Mode Off

Phew, glad I got that off my cheast.

The answer to this airport crowding problem is so oblivious that I am shocked that no one has realized the solution.

The problem is that there are too many airplanes and not enough runways, right? Well, just get rid of all the airliners. Only let corporate aircraft operate into London.

Problem solved.

Let everybody else take busses and trains. Much simpler that way.

Even when the airline passengers get on the ground they still have to get on a buss or a train. Just cut out the middle men (airliners).

:ok:

(now ducks for cover)

When you decide to close LHR and build a modern airport in Devon or Somerset, then come on out to the real world and take a look at what DFW and DEN have done.

French airport planners did so when they decided to expand CDG and implement some of our ideas.

If you fail to do so, a time will come when all the airports around London will reach a saturation point for traffic when no more growth will be possible.

Also, get some good German engineering in to plan for Maglev tracks from the new airport feeding the traffic to and from London.

Con-pilot,

I like your style....That's the answer to flight crew asking for the reason for the delay, I just say 'aircraft'. No aircraft, no delay!

When you decide to close LHR

Not in your lifetime sunshine.

http://www.britishrepublic.org.uk/

I wonder how this one will go over:)

Ahhhh, it all become blatently clear now......... :rolleyes:


Don't let door hit your ass on the way out.

European cities where travelers are most likely to experience a late intra-European flight (By the Association of European Airlines, October 2004):

1)Dublin (DUB): 24.7 % of flights were late in the 2nd quarter

2)Vienna (VIE), London (LHR) 21.8 %


3)Zurich (ZRH) 21.7 %

4)Rome (FCO) 19.8 %

5)Madrid (MAD) 19.6 %

6) Paris (CDG) 19 %

European cities with the best records include:

Brussels 10.7 %
Geneva 11.2 %
Frankfurt 13.% %

...Mind you, all the so called inbound delays could all disappear once the new approach sequencing tool thingy comes online...:O

Chortle!

R23+1/2

I'm not certain that inbound delays can be laid squarely at the feet of LHR ATC or LATCC; everything IN to LHR has to come OUT of somewhere else!!

Departure delays at CDG are horrendous; IST isn't much better and MXP has it's days too. At some point every major European airport will have departure delays which will knock on; I don't see it as balanced just to consider inbound delays.

Flip Flop,

I think your "rules" for nimbys would be fine if they had purchased a house near an active airport, but daft ideas like Cliffe and Rugby were challenged for other reasons too, even if we usually only heard the nimby bleatings.

Having read through virtually all of the letters of objection to CVTs IPF, I think just about all of them use the line "we don't need this with BHX down the road".

I would certainly love to see a law which said that any complaint about expansion of an existing facility which just suggested that a location down the road was better should be instantly ignored!

If airports are having to offer mitigation as part of a S106 agreement, they should also demand a legally binding statement that local residents' groups will not whip up any scare stories about planes falling out of the sky, or make any rubbish claims about everyone coming down with asthma.

Covenants should also be placed on property purchases, waiving any rights to complain about future expansion, as the loudest nimbys are very often the newcomers.

A 20 mile no build zone was established around Denver airport.

unmanned ,
Just been on the Denver [Colorado] web site and aerial maps... There are a lot of pretend buildings within 5 miles, let alone 20....Sure you didn't mean Denver [Cambs]?
watp,iktch

Those are just a throwback to the bye-gone days.
Just old Indian tepees!!

1)Dublin (DUB): 24.7 % of flights were late in the 2nd quarter


See........told ya! I hate that bloody place!

European cities where travelers are most likely to experience a late intra-European flight (By the Association of European Airlines, October 2004):
AEA has now published the 2004 data here (http://www.aea.be/AEAWebsite/DataFiles/Pr05-013.pdf)

Out of the 27 airports surveyed, LHR had the highest departure delay rate (27.8%) but the second-lowest (after Gatwick) for average delay duration (32.9 minutes).

As for arrivals, LHR was second-worst (after Istanbul) with 29.1% delays but second-best (after Gatwick) for delay duration (34.6 minutes).

So now you know

While Unmanned is being a bit simplistic, his criticism of the UK's lack of investment in London's runway infrastructure is well founded. If it weren't for the forsight of someone in the Ministry to use War Measures Act powers to build Heathrow in the first place, where would we be now!

The topic of LHR delay is close to my heart. First, one needs to distinguish between airline puctuality and holding delay (ie, circling in the stacks). Airlines do build holding into their block times, so can easily hold fo 20 min and still arrive 'on time'. Just look at block times on certain routes, eg, from AMS in the moring peak KLM schedule 95 min block time in the morning and 75 min in the afternoon!

LHR capacity is set at a level to maintain an average of 10 min holding delay. In practice the average is 12-14 min in the morning peak, and a lot of effort is ongoing tol reduce this. Clearly, much higher holding will occur if there are demand peaks and/or reduced flow (eg, LVPs).

There is a need to improve LHR's holding delays. Unless valuable slots are given up (not likely) the solution is to increase capacity.

A 3rd runway is a long way off (if ever), but why not mixed mode once T5 opens and there is more taxiway/stand capacity? I know the NIMBY arguments against it, but seriously why not?

Mixed mode would give a capacity in the mid to high 90 mvts/hr after a but of practice, compared with and average of 82/h now. Annually, it is worth about 570,000 ATMs v todays 470,000.

It's actually questionable whether a 3rd (short) runway would give you much more, or any, additional capacity.

con - pilot,I quite liked the spelling error,if indeed it was "oblivious' for obvious. Put the whole message into context.

lhr_slots,

Mixed mode will never work at Heathrow. It's too small for one, and there are so many noise considerations which restrict departure routes.

edit: Sorry, I'll amend that. Mixed mode would work for twenty minutes or so until the airfield grinds to a halt.

A hold in a racetrack pattern with other aircraft is not considered a delay?

If my 767 departs airport 'A' and is not allowed to land at airport 'B' because of traffic density but has to loiter around in the air for another half hour burning up fuel and crew time, this sure indicates wasted time to me.

As long as it lands on time, though, it's not a delay as far as the airlines see it. They would rather programme in an extra twenty minutes a flight to allow for holding, not having a vacant stand etc than cut the number of flights.

The vagaries of statistics. For example, if an outbound pushes back on time, then taxies or even sometimes gets towed to a remote holding area to wait for a slot time, the airline can class that as an 'on time departure', despite the fact that it won't take off for another hour or more.

Gonzo,

Haven't we gone round and round this before? Mixed mode WILL work and it WILL be fun! or have you lost all sense of adventure? :)

Hey, you're meant to be on leave!

Tell you what, I'll stop saying it's impossible if I can watch you do bandboxed GMC in the new tower with EFPS and mixed mode on easterlies!!!!! :ok:

Darn, I'm on leave? Best tell that to the paint brush! :) As for the BBX GMC on Easterlies Mixed mode and EFPS, your on! I'll take 23:00 hrs on a saturday night!