World's worst airport for delayed arrivals.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Dublin Ireland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Jerricho
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!
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!
Junior trash
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,025
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Around
Age: 56
Posts: 572
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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, **** 'em! Lock 'em up, fine 'em in cash and return 'em on firav.
Rant Mode Off
Phew, glad I got that off my cheast.
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, **** 'em! Lock 'em up, fine 'em in cash and return 'em on firav.
Rant Mode Off
Phew, glad I got that off my cheast.
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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).
(now ducks for cover)
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).
(now ducks for cover)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.% %
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.% %
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Dre's mum's house
Posts: 1,432
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departure Delays
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
A Runyonesque Character
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The South of France ... Not
Age: 74
Posts: 1,209
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
European cities where travelers are most likely to experience a late intra-European flight (By the Association of European Airlines, October 2004):
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
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ASCOTT
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.