LHR wasting Airlines' fuel.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unmanned, if you're such a bright boy why don't you tell us this: why, when Air Canada is stripping paint off 767s to save a few gallons of fuel do you think they would burn the same fuel in the Heathrow stacks when they could "simply go to AMS"?
You asked Flap40 for his source as to 100t+ of fuel burned for the extra trekking to AMS 36L. Do you deny that any extra fuel is burned at AMS to placate the environmental lobby?
come on unmanned, don't tease us so - let's have your grand plan!
You asked Flap40 for his source as to 100t+ of fuel burned for the extra trekking to AMS 36L. Do you deny that any extra fuel is burned at AMS to placate the environmental lobby?
come on unmanned, don't tease us so - let's have your grand plan!
Unmanned Transport,
You say:
You miss the point completely.
Obviously aircraft could go to one of the continental hubs. But the very fact that they prefer to stack up and wait to land at LHR rather than go to CDG or AMS indicates that that's where the airlines want to fly to.
You are, in effect, demanding that airlines and passengers who want to fly to LHR be turned away because a bit of jet fuel is burnt in the stack.
What is your ulterior motive?
You say:
The Continent, CDG, AMS, FRA etc.
Obviously aircraft could go to one of the continental hubs. But the very fact that they prefer to stack up and wait to land at LHR rather than go to CDG or AMS indicates that that's where the airlines want to fly to.
You are, in effect, demanding that airlines and passengers who want to fly to LHR be turned away because a bit of jet fuel is burnt in the stack.
What is your ulterior motive?
An interesting thread...however i can only assume that if the airlines wish to contunue into LHR (and stack etc) despite of costs its because - shock horror for a lot of you - its the passenger that decides that she/he wishes to utilise LHR - often for onward connections...and as a consequence - its the passenger that pays for addition fuel or increasing fuel costs - or if "subsidised" by the airline - its not out of good will on the part of that carrier but basic law of economics - supply and demand. Hike up the cost and joe public will look for alternative.
Spent 45 mins in the FRA hold the other day - missed connection to MUC however Lufthansa by the time I was on the deck had already re-booked me on next flight and issued new boarding card within 2 minutes. well impressed.
Nivsy
Spent 45 mins in the FRA hold the other day - missed connection to MUC however Lufthansa by the time I was on the deck had already re-booked me on next flight and issued new boarding card within 2 minutes. well impressed.
Nivsy
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The airport authorities (via ATC) can offer the airlines a choice. Much more efficient operations but with a heck of a lot less capacity, or vice versa. Guess which the airlines who use LHR want ??
Having a holding reservoir of aircraft is the best way to ensure that the approach tracks are always full of aircraft at minimum separation and ergo the airport will be operating at its highest throughput of arrivals.
The fact is that people want to travel to London and airlines want to operate from London. Unmanned transport doesn't .. and has a freedom of choice. Use another airport
Airport Co-ordination Limited explain the situation to the CAA:
Capacity
Heathrow runway capacity is reviewed twice yearly in advance of each scheduling season. Capacity is assessed against an agreed average delay criteria of 10 minutes. The process involves simulating the impact on average delays of adding additional slots at particular times of day. Where the additional slots do not result in a breach of the delay criterion, they are made available for allocation.
This process has resulted in a gradual increase in runway capacity over the years. Between the summer seasons 1997 – 2002 the number of daytime (06:00 – 22:59) slots available each day has increased from 1291 to 1357 (+66 or 5.1%).
Table 1 presents the declared runway capacities for the summer 1997 and 2002 seasons.
The number of slots per hour generally varies between 39 – 43 arrivals and 40 – 44 departures, with the following exceptions:
Arrivals in the 06:00 – 06:59 period are limited to 36 slots. This is largely due to the fact that the aircraft arriving at this time are almost all in the wake vortex category ‘Heavy’. They thus require greater separation distances between aircraft on approach and a lower arrival rate is achievable. It has not proven possible to further increase capacity in this hour without breaching the delay criterion.
Arrivals and departures in the 22:00 – 22:59 period are limited to 21 and 30 slots respectively. This is partly due to lower demand at these times and partly due to the proximity to the Night Quota Period (23:30 – 06:00). Significant increases in capacity in this hour are likely to result in an unacceptable increase in unplanned aircraft movements during the Night Quota Period due to operational delays. The number of permissible movements at night is strictly limited by the DTLR regulations and the quota is already very scarce.
Departures in the 06:00 – 06:59 period are limited to 27 slots. This is partly due to lower demand and partly due to the need to use the departing runway for aircraft landings at this time to reduce delays(*).
(*) The Heathrow runways normally operate in segregated mode (one for arrivals and one for departures). However, under conditions of high delay, procedures exist to use both runways for arriving aircraft to reduce delay. This tends to occur in the morning period.
Demand
Demand for Heathrow slots exceeds capacity by a wide margin. Over the 06:00 – 22:59 period, demand exceeded total capacity by 19% in a typical week for the summer 2002 season. Figure 1 below shows the degree of excess demand as a percentage of capacity.
Figure 1 Heathrow Summer 2002 Average Excess Demand
Figure 2 below shows the percentage capacity utilisation throughout the day.
Figure 2 Heathrow Summer 2002 Capacity Utilisation Typical week – Monday to Friday average
Having a holding reservoir of aircraft is the best way to ensure that the approach tracks are always full of aircraft at minimum separation and ergo the airport will be operating at its highest throughput of arrivals.
The fact is that people want to travel to London and airlines want to operate from London. Unmanned transport doesn't .. and has a freedom of choice. Use another airport
Airport Co-ordination Limited explain the situation to the CAA:
Capacity
Heathrow runway capacity is reviewed twice yearly in advance of each scheduling season. Capacity is assessed against an agreed average delay criteria of 10 minutes. The process involves simulating the impact on average delays of adding additional slots at particular times of day. Where the additional slots do not result in a breach of the delay criterion, they are made available for allocation.
This process has resulted in a gradual increase in runway capacity over the years. Between the summer seasons 1997 – 2002 the number of daytime (06:00 – 22:59) slots available each day has increased from 1291 to 1357 (+66 or 5.1%).
Table 1 presents the declared runway capacities for the summer 1997 and 2002 seasons.
The number of slots per hour generally varies between 39 – 43 arrivals and 40 – 44 departures, with the following exceptions:
Arrivals in the 06:00 – 06:59 period are limited to 36 slots. This is largely due to the fact that the aircraft arriving at this time are almost all in the wake vortex category ‘Heavy’. They thus require greater separation distances between aircraft on approach and a lower arrival rate is achievable. It has not proven possible to further increase capacity in this hour without breaching the delay criterion.
Arrivals and departures in the 22:00 – 22:59 period are limited to 21 and 30 slots respectively. This is partly due to lower demand at these times and partly due to the proximity to the Night Quota Period (23:30 – 06:00). Significant increases in capacity in this hour are likely to result in an unacceptable increase in unplanned aircraft movements during the Night Quota Period due to operational delays. The number of permissible movements at night is strictly limited by the DTLR regulations and the quota is already very scarce.
Departures in the 06:00 – 06:59 period are limited to 27 slots. This is partly due to lower demand and partly due to the need to use the departing runway for aircraft landings at this time to reduce delays(*).
(*) The Heathrow runways normally operate in segregated mode (one for arrivals and one for departures). However, under conditions of high delay, procedures exist to use both runways for arriving aircraft to reduce delay. This tends to occur in the morning period.
Demand
Demand for Heathrow slots exceeds capacity by a wide margin. Over the 06:00 – 22:59 period, demand exceeded total capacity by 19% in a typical week for the summer 2002 season. Figure 1 below shows the degree of excess demand as a percentage of capacity.
Figure 1 Heathrow Summer 2002 Average Excess Demand
Figure 2 below shows the percentage capacity utilisation throughout the day.
Figure 2 Heathrow Summer 2002 Capacity Utilisation Typical week – Monday to Friday average
PPRuNe Radar : Interesting detail. Your opening paragraph sums it up perfectly.
If you look at the supposedly-moneylosing Heathrow shorthaul routes over the years, what has happened ? BA has downsized their aircraft, from L1011s and 757s dominating in the 1980s to the A319s and 320s of today. But the frequency on shorthaul is up. Many European destinations have double the flights they had 20 years ago, but with smaller aircraft. The opposite of what would be expected with tight slots.
BMI too is currently reducing their A321 fleet and bringing in A319s in lieu, while complaining about "shortage of capacity".
Qantas are allowed to waste everyone else's time with their useless 146 flights to Manchester (do they ever carry any passengers - the codeshared BA flights operated in parallel are more convenient for the passengers anyway) just to meet some bureaucratic slot requirement. A more sensible approach could certainly have prevailed.
The routes lost are so often those which were the only operation to London, such as Liverpool, Plymouth, etc, and the UK Govt could reasonably be expected to have taken an interest in such a loss of regional connections, just to make way for the 10th "me-too" service to Mumbai or elsewhere.
A generation ago BEA put much work into pioneering Autoland, in particular for the domestic trunk routes, to improve operations in fog. Nowadays, because the maximum slots for good vis are operated, whenever fog comes down all the domestic trunks have half their flights cancelled anyway to meet lower landing limits, these flights being the "easiest" targets for a range of reasons. What a waste of effort.
If you look at the supposedly-moneylosing Heathrow shorthaul routes over the years, what has happened ? BA has downsized their aircraft, from L1011s and 757s dominating in the 1980s to the A319s and 320s of today. But the frequency on shorthaul is up. Many European destinations have double the flights they had 20 years ago, but with smaller aircraft. The opposite of what would be expected with tight slots.
BMI too is currently reducing their A321 fleet and bringing in A319s in lieu, while complaining about "shortage of capacity".
Qantas are allowed to waste everyone else's time with their useless 146 flights to Manchester (do they ever carry any passengers - the codeshared BA flights operated in parallel are more convenient for the passengers anyway) just to meet some bureaucratic slot requirement. A more sensible approach could certainly have prevailed.
The routes lost are so often those which were the only operation to London, such as Liverpool, Plymouth, etc, and the UK Govt could reasonably be expected to have taken an interest in such a loss of regional connections, just to make way for the 10th "me-too" service to Mumbai or elsewhere.
A generation ago BEA put much work into pioneering Autoland, in particular for the domestic trunk routes, to improve operations in fog. Nowadays, because the maximum slots for good vis are operated, whenever fog comes down all the domestic trunks have half their flights cancelled anyway to meet lower landing limits, these flights being the "easiest" targets for a range of reasons. What a waste of effort.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe Radar: Thanks for the information
but
nowhere in the above do I see the word fuel noted.
now
back to the original thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHR wasting Airlines' fuel.
LHR must be the worst airport in the world for wasting Airlines' fuel due to the holds that they have to do in the stacks prior to landing.
____________________________
Stats would be helpful on this one.
____________________________
but
nowhere in the above do I see the word fuel noted.
now
back to the original thread:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LHR wasting Airlines' fuel.
LHR must be the worst airport in the world for wasting Airlines' fuel due to the holds that they have to do in the stacks prior to landing.
____________________________
Stats would be helpful on this one.
____________________________
Too mean to buy a long personal title
unmanned transport: LHR must be the worst airport in the world for wasting Airlines' fuel due to the holds that they have to do in the stacks prior to landing.
LHR doesn't waste airlines' fuel. The airlines choose to burn it in the stacks, as for commercial reasons they prefer it to the alternative, which is lower capacity.
You may agree or disagree with their choice, but it seems to me that that's the answer to your point.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: LHR/LGW
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I didn't know better I'd think there might be a troll in our midst?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...59#post1746459
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...59#post1746459
Last edited by gonadz; 17th Nov 2005 at 18:03.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok so Unmanned has an agenda here to which I'm not privileged to see, nor wish too.
However there is a valid point here and one which PP Radar has also highlighted with interesting statistics (I'm sure I've been to one of your briefings in the control tower). It is not an issue which is unique to LHR but most major European airports.
With a USG of Jet A1 at the $2.50 mark, flying round in circles whether clean or not is very expensive for the airlines, applying downwards pressure on contributions and also, very impotantly, environmentaly unfriendly.
Senior airline management must and, I'm sure, are addressing this issue with the usual high level of co-operation from NATS but I do not know whether there is a pan european initiative on this.
This is a difficult issue and not one that is easily solved in the short term, but, one thing is for certain is that demand for air travel is on the rise year on year and there is no forecast of cheaper fuel.
Perhaps we need more A380's and less 787's.
PPRadars - will the separation distance between an A380 and other traffic be increased?
EM
However there is a valid point here and one which PP Radar has also highlighted with interesting statistics (I'm sure I've been to one of your briefings in the control tower). It is not an issue which is unique to LHR but most major European airports.
With a USG of Jet A1 at the $2.50 mark, flying round in circles whether clean or not is very expensive for the airlines, applying downwards pressure on contributions and also, very impotantly, environmentaly unfriendly.
Senior airline management must and, I'm sure, are addressing this issue with the usual high level of co-operation from NATS but I do not know whether there is a pan european initiative on this.
This is a difficult issue and not one that is easily solved in the short term, but, one thing is for certain is that demand for air travel is on the rise year on year and there is no forecast of cheaper fuel.
Perhaps we need more A380's and less 787's.
PPRadars - will the separation distance between an A380 and other traffic be increased?
EM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR must be the worst airport in the world for wasting Airlines' fuel due to the holds that they have to do in the stacks prior to landing.
____________________________
Stats would be helpful on this one.
____________________________
____________________________
Stats would be helpful on this one.
____________________________
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should have taken my own advice. I will do so after I get a sensible answer this post.
Unmanned, I am a Tower ATCO at Heathrow. Please tell me what I can do differently so that I can eliminate inbound holding at Heathrow.
Unmanned, I am a Tower ATCO at Heathrow. Please tell me what I can do differently so that I can eliminate inbound holding at Heathrow.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the BAA to half the required capacity ... voila, no more holding and fuel wastage 
Based on what Stats please ??? And can you provide meaningful comparisons with other world airports which use departure ground holding areas, inefficient descent and speed profiles (applied several hundred miles out) and excessive vectoring with multiple runway changes, just so we have a level playing field for our consideration of who is best and worst ?
It's horses for courses. LHR finds that stacks serve it best in getting lots of aircraft on the ground at minimum separation. Not the most efficient fuel wise but it works. Other airports use some of the other methods I've asked you to provide stats on. Not the most efficient fuel wise .. but then it works for them in the environment they have available. Hey, you're not Capt Michael Baidada are you ?? Softening us up for your 'Free Flight' utopian dream which you claim could be brought in with only 3 years lead time
I'm inclined to merge all the 'LHR is the worst' threads. It's like listening to a broken record.
LHR must be the worst airport in the world for wasting Airlines' fuel due to the holds that they have to do in the stacks prior to landing.
It's horses for courses. LHR finds that stacks serve it best in getting lots of aircraft on the ground at minimum separation. Not the most efficient fuel wise but it works. Other airports use some of the other methods I've asked you to provide stats on. Not the most efficient fuel wise .. but then it works for them in the environment they have available. Hey, you're not Capt Michael Baidada are you ?? Softening us up for your 'Free Flight' utopian dream which you claim could be brought in with only 3 years lead time
I'm inclined to merge all the 'LHR is the worst' threads. It's like listening to a broken record.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unmanned, I am a Tower ATCO at Heathrow. Please tell me what I can do differently so that I can eliminate inbound holding at Heathrow.
********
Gonzo, I commend you good folk for the job that you do.
Your record down thru the ages proves it.
********
Gonzo, I commend you good folk for the job that you do.
Your record down thru the ages proves it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I was once number 42 for take off at JFK one memorable evening. I've never been more than number 10 or 12 at Heathrow, even at busy times. I think other airports build their delays into the system in other ways. The very long extended downwind run into Newark springs to mind (40 miles not unknown).
Well if you don't like it tell your airline to fly somewhere else then, am sure it will be noted and actioned ASAP. Or perhaps they will say yes we know and were still making money so shut you trap. LHR is busy v busy and the ATC do there best and even better at times, space in UK is not as easy to come by as in USA so building another 4 mile runway is not an option, so take your pax to oooooooooo Birmingham then see how many book then.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I nominate Frankfurt as the worst airport for wasting fuel. Instead of flying round for 20 minutes clean at FL80 or above like you do at LHR, they'll send you on a 30+ mile excursion downwind and then on to a 30 mile final at low level with a dirty wing. Then on departure they'll send you the long way round for an intersection departure on R18.
I bet that'll pee the troll off!
I bet that'll pee the troll off!