World's worst airport for delayed arrivals.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Timbuktu
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greystation
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?????
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?????
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'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.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Costing airlines a fortune.
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.
as well as outrageous ground costs.
It's time to hub on the Continent instead of an island.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Dublin Ireland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is there a theme to your posts?
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)
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)
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Building airports on islands bad? Pity someone didn't tell HKG 
What a load of trolling crap the parent post is.
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
What a load of trolling crap the parent post is.
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
*************************************************
A couple more parallel rwys with sufficient separation for quad approaches/departures like DFW or DEN. would work wonders for the ole gal.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Near Stalyvegas
Age: 78
Posts: 2,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
watp,iktch
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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. But, lateral rwy separation distance would be a major factor to implement at LHR.
Anyone know if CDG has triple ldg/t-off capability?
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely stacking would not be required if triple or quad simultaneous approaches/departs were in order
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?