Originally Posted by
055166k
OK, there are a few drawbacks such as VAST amounts of airspace, up to a hundred extra track miles, more fuel, no EAT because you are technically in the approach system.
Benefits include scenic flight over the Channel to see Belgium and Northern France.
I don't agree with you.
Airspace - Pretty sure that there wasn't an "airspace grab" needed for this? - happy to concede this point though if someone knows better?
Track miles - early days yet but from what I've seen during peak traffic hours the track miles flown seem comparable, some less, some more (although nothing like 100 miles more!). During quieter periods I'll grant you that the track miles flown appear to be greater - suspect though that when experience of the system grows that more shortcuts will be given.
Fuel - Given the aircraft are staying higher for longer with much less low-level vectoring/holding I suspect that fuel burn is, in fact, much less on average than pre-LAMP. This is one of the reasons I started the thread - to find out from the crews what difference it has made.
EAT - Not sure how familiar you are with how things operated pre-LAMP...at least now if aircraft are put in the holding stacks a realistic estimate could be given.
Not sure I'd describe the Thames estuary as "over the channel" - and does mean that any airborne holding is done at much higher levels/over unpopulated areas thereby reducing noise effect to those on the ground.