LHR wasting Airlines' fuel.
Paxing All Over The World
[wading in feet first] When making yet another peremptory demand for free information from people that you do not know, unmanned ... Perhaps it would help your cause if you were to clarify the request.
How many stacks do LHR use?
1) Available at certain times of the day but not in use.
2) Available at certain times of the day and in use.
3) What times of the day and by what criteria? Wind direction etc.
4) How are these affected by equipment failures?
5) How are these stacks varied during oerational hours? and by day of the week?
The list is rather longer and with many more permutations than I can think of. Still, I'm sure that you can ignore me and just make more demands.
The answers are commercial and political. Why does LaGuardia still exist, with all the noise and flights over residentail housing that it produces? Because people want to use it and the politicians let them.
Dear old Hearthrug exists for the same reason. If you could get the UK gov to cut the landing slots by 50% most of the holds would not be needed. Your MP will be pleased to respond to your request.
How many stacks do LHR use?
1) Available at certain times of the day but not in use.
2) Available at certain times of the day and in use.
3) What times of the day and by what criteria? Wind direction etc.
4) How are these affected by equipment failures?
5) How are these stacks varied during oerational hours? and by day of the week?
The list is rather longer and with many more permutations than I can think of. Still, I'm sure that you can ignore me and just make more demands.
The answers are commercial and political. Why does LaGuardia still exist, with all the noise and flights over residentail housing that it produces? Because people want to use it and the politicians let them.
Dear old Hearthrug exists for the same reason. If you could get the UK gov to cut the landing slots by 50% most of the holds would not be needed. Your MP will be pleased to respond to your request.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I realize that there are many variables but let's nail it down to one month for LHR. Say July of this year.
How many stacks for the month for LHR?
Now give me the number of stacks for CDG, AMS and FRA for July.
(Don't 'beat around the bush' on this one again. All I want are the numbers).
How many stacks for the month for LHR?
Now give me the number of stacks for CDG, AMS and FRA for July.
(Don't 'beat around the bush' on this one again. All I want are the numbers).
All I want are the numbers
So, you wanted the numbers. Here are some numbers.
In the last year, you have made 86 posts, including the initiation of 22 threads. 12 of those 22 threads were based on some form of brit bashing, and a whopping 48 out of the 86 posts could be construed as anti-brit. By this, I mean not just your own predictable side swipes at the british aviation industry but also your gleeful reporting of news stories which compare BAA, BA etc unfavourably to others, your direct insults against Britain and the british, and your habit of finding an anti-british angle in topics which don't even directly concern us.
I would encourage anyone who reads this to search your previous messages so that they can see for themselves. However, here's a far from exhaustive sample:
15/1/05
It's time to hub on the Continent instead of an island.
And now this small island nation has been reduced to sub-contracting
Paris, the world's most important air hub
most Australians are anti-monarchists!!
When Australia unshackels itself from the old English monarchy system
We all know that the Brits were a flop when it came to producing and marketing airliners in the past
Barbados will gain their independence from England
You are a little Island for God's sake.
Western technology was driving us to the Moon and Mars while you fine folk on the Island were playing around with Supersonics thinking you had something
AC have made a wise choice, going with the GENX powerplant instead of the foreign (RR) one
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Age: 79
Posts: 8,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unmanned - I've read your postings many times and always end up laughing like a drain. Why? Maybe it's because I've spent my whole life as an aviation professional and most of it as a Heathrow controller. Unfortunately you appear to have little comprehension of aviation matters, least of all those involved in the operation of a major airport! Nevertheless, you deserve answers..
Heathrow has 4 holding areas and these are available and in use virtually all day every day. What controls whether they are in use is the offering of traffic; nothing else. The stacks don't close at particular times or in any particular circumstances. Occasionally, the presence of bad weather might result in traffic being routed to other holding areas, but the 4 holds are available for use, 24 hrs day, 365 days a year.
Anyone with the slightest inkling of Heathrow's operation would probably offer the following options to increasing traffic capability:
1. Bulldoze everywhere within 5 miles and lets get a BIG airport going - the whole of Heathrow could be tucked away into the corner of most US airports so lets get some more concrete out there.. Remember, Heathrow used to have 6 runways and was originally planned to have 9. All but 2 have gone - why?
2. Put a pen through the noise abatement procedures. At a single stroke this could increase the movement rate by about 25%.
Lastly, given the constraints of available concrete, noise abatement procedures and the ever changing British weather it would be difficult to dramatically increase the movement rates currently being achieved at Heathrow.
Heathrow has 4 holding areas and these are available and in use virtually all day every day. What controls whether they are in use is the offering of traffic; nothing else. The stacks don't close at particular times or in any particular circumstances. Occasionally, the presence of bad weather might result in traffic being routed to other holding areas, but the 4 holds are available for use, 24 hrs day, 365 days a year.
Anyone with the slightest inkling of Heathrow's operation would probably offer the following options to increasing traffic capability:
1. Bulldoze everywhere within 5 miles and lets get a BIG airport going - the whole of Heathrow could be tucked away into the corner of most US airports so lets get some more concrete out there.. Remember, Heathrow used to have 6 runways and was originally planned to have 9. All but 2 have gone - why?
2. Put a pen through the noise abatement procedures. At a single stroke this could increase the movement rate by about 25%.
Lastly, given the constraints of available concrete, noise abatement procedures and the ever changing British weather it would be difficult to dramatically increase the movement rates currently being achieved at Heathrow.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unmanned - I've read your postings many times and always end up laughing like a drain.
***************************************************
Well that's great, I'll try and continue to put a smile on your dial.
Nevertheless, you deserve answers.
*****************************
Thanks, that's all I want for now.
Heathrow has 4 holding areas and these are available and in use virtually all day every day. What controls whether they are in use is the offering of traffic; nothing else. The stacks don't close at particular times or in any particular circumstances. Occasionally, the presence of bad weather might result in traffic being routed to other holding areas, but the 4 holds are available for use, 24 hrs day, 365 days a year.
********************
Good, so we have established some facts, not like all the other 'cock & bull' responses.
1. Bulldoze everywhere within 5 miles and lets get a BIG airport going - the whole of Heathrow could be tucked away into the corner of most US airports so lets get some more concrete out there.. Remember, Heathrow used to have 6 runways and was originally planned to have 9. All but 2 have gone - why?
2. Put a pen through the noise abatement procedures. At a single stroke this could increase the movement rate by about 25%.
************************************************
Agreed, how about some DAISY CUTTERS as well to break up the runways. Just like the ones that were dropped in 'Afthganaland' to rattle 'Binned Laiden's' chain and a fleet of D12 Catterpillars.
Give the Nimbies some forewarning.
Lay out a world class airport somewhere there is the south west of the island. Establish a 'Nimby free zone, maybe with a 20 mile radius around this place'.
Maglevs feeding London.
Man that was a great dream.
***************************************************
Well that's great, I'll try and continue to put a smile on your dial.
Nevertheless, you deserve answers.
*****************************
Thanks, that's all I want for now.
Heathrow has 4 holding areas and these are available and in use virtually all day every day. What controls whether they are in use is the offering of traffic; nothing else. The stacks don't close at particular times or in any particular circumstances. Occasionally, the presence of bad weather might result in traffic being routed to other holding areas, but the 4 holds are available for use, 24 hrs day, 365 days a year.
********************
Good, so we have established some facts, not like all the other 'cock & bull' responses.
1. Bulldoze everywhere within 5 miles and lets get a BIG airport going - the whole of Heathrow could be tucked away into the corner of most US airports so lets get some more concrete out there.. Remember, Heathrow used to have 6 runways and was originally planned to have 9. All but 2 have gone - why?
2. Put a pen through the noise abatement procedures. At a single stroke this could increase the movement rate by about 25%.
************************************************
Agreed, how about some DAISY CUTTERS as well to break up the runways. Just like the ones that were dropped in 'Afthganaland' to rattle 'Binned Laiden's' chain and a fleet of D12 Catterpillars.
Give the Nimbies some forewarning.
Lay out a world class airport somewhere there is the south west of the island. Establish a 'Nimby free zone, maybe with a 20 mile radius around this place'.
Maglevs feeding London.
Man that was a great dream.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A nimby free zone 20miles around LHR. Wouldn't that include HM the Queen? Better hope you declare your zone before Charles of "monstrous carbuncle" fame ascends...
unmanned - there really is no-one at your controls is there.
unmanned - there really is no-one at your controls is there.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: England
Posts: 367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed, how about some DAISY CUTTERS as well to break up the runways. Just like the ones that were dropped in 'Afthganaland' to rattle 'Binned Laiden's' chain and a fleet of D12 Catterpillars.
Going to ignor this crap mode. This chap's one wave short of shipwreck
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Four quads, (runways) with sufficient lateral separation
for simultaneous lands and departs. A couple of rwys
90 degrees from these as well, similar to the layout at Denver,
Colorado.
for simultaneous lands and departs. A couple of rwys
90 degrees from these as well, similar to the layout at Denver,
Colorado.
Unmanned
To use your own logic, lets see the FACTS for your little hair brained synopsis that LHR is the worst airfield for wasting fuel?
Just because at LHR they stack a/c rather than sequence from 100's of miles back and give extended routing as other countries do (the UK is a small densely populated country- unlike parts of europe or the US!), does not mean fuel is wasted more here. I have spent just as long or longer being slowed and vectored for european or US airports as I have done going round an LHR stack!
When it all comes down to it track miles round an LHR stack is probably just the same as extending and slowing at other airports in countries with airspace available to do that!
To use your own logic, lets see the FACTS for your little hair brained synopsis that LHR is the worst airfield for wasting fuel?
Just because at LHR they stack a/c rather than sequence from 100's of miles back and give extended routing as other countries do (the UK is a small densely populated country- unlike parts of europe or the US!), does not mean fuel is wasted more here. I have spent just as long or longer being slowed and vectored for european or US airports as I have done going round an LHR stack!
When it all comes down to it track miles round an LHR stack is probably just the same as extending and slowing at other airports in countries with airspace available to do that!
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You obviously don't know very much about airlines, UT.
British Airways do a good job of 'wasting' time and money themselves. Many, many aircraft can't park on stand when they arrive because there aren't enough dispatchers around to turn the stand guidance on. Do they employ more? No, they add five or ten minutes on to each flight time.
Aircraft often have to hold for stands after landing, as there aren't enough gates to cater for the number of flgihts. Do the airlines fly fewer services thus providing a better and quicker service to passengers? No, they add on five or ten mintues to the flight time.
And 10 DME ARC is right.....how does the fuel/time incurred by ten minutes holding at LAM or BNN compare to starting to descend and slow down hundreds of miles away from destination as in the USA?
British Airways do a good job of 'wasting' time and money themselves. Many, many aircraft can't park on stand when they arrive because there aren't enough dispatchers around to turn the stand guidance on. Do they employ more? No, they add five or ten minutes on to each flight time.
Aircraft often have to hold for stands after landing, as there aren't enough gates to cater for the number of flgihts. Do the airlines fly fewer services thus providing a better and quicker service to passengers? No, they add on five or ten mintues to the flight time.
And 10 DME ARC is right.....how does the fuel/time incurred by ten minutes holding at LAM or BNN compare to starting to descend and slow down hundreds of miles away from destination as in the USA?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the ground for now.
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's focus on the air stuff for now and not mix it up with departs out of LHR, Gonz.
An inbound from my neck of the woods over here, JFK,
eg; has to orbit in one of your stacks for half an hour.
Another heavy (same type) departs 10 mins later from here to LGW. Most times he will be on the grd. first.
One could say that LHR is past it\'s saturation point with rgds. to traffic, since you are orbiting inbounds in four stacks at times.
The balance between LHR inbounds and gate availability is also out of kilter. What kinda hodpodge of an operation are you guys up to there?
An inbound from my neck of the woods over here, JFK,
eg; has to orbit in one of your stacks for half an hour.
Another heavy (same type) departs 10 mins later from here to LGW. Most times he will be on the grd. first.
One could say that LHR is past it\'s saturation point with rgds. to traffic, since you are orbiting inbounds in four stacks at times.
The balance between LHR inbounds and gate availability is also out of kilter. What kinda hodpodge of an operation are you guys up to there?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Stockport
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry but just like your car industry which in 10 years will be totally taken over by Toyota and Hyundai
Move on find another subject to moan about, America is not the perfect country you like to think it is infact far from it.
G-I-B
Move on find another subject to moan about, America is not the perfect country you like to think it is infact far from it.
G-I-B
Last edited by GOLF-INDIA BRAVO; 20th Nov 2005 at 08:27.