Skippy
This is fundametally wrong, and as a commercial analysis it's nonsense. Do you know that locos do not interline with legacy long haul?
Err, so I now need the the permission of KLM, in triplicate, before I can take an Easy flight to AMS and pick up a flight there?
Where was your last job - North Korea?
Skippy
I comment on LCY go arounds to support the presence of fog on the Thames, something you present as "imaginary". It clearly is not and this has been put to you by numerous people.
Err, you cannot do autolands at LCY.... Is that clear enough for you? A smokey candle will close LCY.
Sippy
I seriously don't understand how you can be a commercial airline pilot if you're worried about a B747 going off those outer runways at CDG given their stated length.
A 747-400 has a TOFL of 3,000m, which is already 300m beyond the run of the outer runways at CDG (not sure of the clearways there).
But if you think any airline is going to allow you to spool up to max thrust, instead of de-rating on the 4,000 m runway just next door, you have another think coming. And if you think that any old pilots (rather than bold pilots) are going to line up on 2,700 m, when there is 4,000 m right next door, you are again very much mistaken.
If you were a pilot (and I know you are not) you would be out of the door in a trice, together with choice comments from the flight safety, engineering and financial departments.
Aero Mad
<<Heathrow is a planning error of the 60s.>>
Clearly this is utter rubbish, but could you possibly explain the contradiction?
I did not write that, but clearly the statement has merit.
In the '60s LHR was a growing airport, that sprang out of an old RAF airfield. Noisy jets were just arriving, and someone could have made a strategic decision to find a better place for a major London airport. This new location would have to allow for 24hr operations, and so....
a. The new jets needed long approaches and takeoffs, which were then over the city. So they should have looked for a location to the north or northwest of London, to prevent overflying the city (both due noise, and due safety).
b. There were no railways at the Stains site, so they could have looked for a major rail route.
c. The prevailing wind is S.W. in the UK, so they could have looked at SIDs and STARSs for southwesterly runways.
Frankly, I would have stuck my finger on a spot just south of Watford. It was open fields at the time; the flight paths to the SW and NE were clear; it was on the Great North Road, as it was then; it is on the main rail line to the north and northwest (via Rugby); and it was very close to London.
Unfortunately, the planners ducked their responsibilities, and kicked the problem into the long grass. We, unfortunately, are in that long grass, and can no longer duck the problem. A N. London site is now out of the question, but a great swathe of absolutely 'free' land in the Thames estuary, is not.
.