HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never forget, an Englishman's home is his castle.
Actually, with HS2 proceeding via Hybrid Bill, that scheme is more JR proof than it otherwise would be. That's if it gets through! It is a bizarre feature of our system that there is nothing in between Hybrid Bill and Uttlesford District Council for granting planning permission. The failure of both colour Governments to create some form of Infrastructure Planning Commission says a lot.
Actually, with HS2 proceeding via Hybrid Bill, that scheme is more JR proof than it otherwise would be. That's if it gets through! It is a bizarre feature of our system that there is nothing in between Hybrid Bill and Uttlesford District Council for granting planning permission. The failure of both colour Governments to create some form of Infrastructure Planning Commission says a lot.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on 'til morning
Age: 63
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air India flight AI112 from LHR to Delhi reached the Dutch coast tonight (at FL310), did a descending loop north of Amsterdam, continued descent to FL150 at a fairly normal descent rate, continued up the north sea towards Denmark/Norway at FL150, then returned to LHR. Replay of the flight profile is available via this link;
Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!
I don't have any further information; just happened to notice the unusual flight profile on the flightradar24 web site.
Aircraft was a Boeing 777-337ER.
Flightradar24.com - Live flight tracker!
I don't have any further information; just happened to notice the unusual flight profile on the flightradar24 web site.
Aircraft was a Boeing 777-337ER.
Last edited by Porrohman; 27th Jul 2013 at 23:22. Reason: Just to add aircraft type
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T3 departures was a real zoo yesterday - one baggage line broke down and the place looked like a third world airport in about 10 minutes..........
pathetic response from BAA staff as well
pathetic response from BAA staff as well
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could someone explain to me the recent competition ruling regarding LHR-PHL flights? Apparently, US and AA have to give up slots on this route. US have one flight per day. AA has none. How does that work?? Or is it the BA codeshare?
Last edited by jdcg; 29th Jul 2013 at 08:58.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Middx.
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA actually fly 2x777 daily to PHL.
US have 1x333 daily.
AA/US have offered to provide a slot for a competitor to fly the route on a daily basis.
This doesn't necessarily mean the combined AA/BA/US will reduce the daily frequencies ,as the competitor slot could be sourced from elsewhere.
It could be very tough for any competitor taking up this slot as both LHR and PHL will be Oneworld hubs , and a once a day service against 3 Oneworld services could struggle.
US have 1x333 daily.
AA/US have offered to provide a slot for a competitor to fly the route on a daily basis.
This doesn't necessarily mean the combined AA/BA/US will reduce the daily frequencies ,as the competitor slot could be sourced from elsewhere.
It could be very tough for any competitor taking up this slot as both LHR and PHL will be Oneworld hubs , and a once a day service against 3 Oneworld services could struggle.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
very so often I see a small Air Canada Airbus at T3 - any idea what the hell
it does
it does
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: South
Age: 44
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR expansion
What I don't get about the expansion argument re London is the root of the opposition for a 3rd runway at LHR compared to a completely new airport in London. Is there even such an argument? It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: -
LHR 3rd Runway
CONS
- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.
New airport/Boris Island
etc
CONS
- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC
Honestly the list is endless. Most tellingly of all, whenever I see a programme on LHR (BBC recently spent a few nights live there) or indeed even meet someone who lives under LHR's flightpath people always just brush of the concept of noise as they either say they are use to it or they appreciate it is massively important to sustain jobs. So if the surrounding area seems to be largely supportive of LHR and its future success then who is against the 3rd runway? The enviro mentalists possibly but then once a whole new airport becomes tangible in any way shape or form then they will soon cause a far bigger uproar. It's the dog with a bone mentality. Plus as far as I can see they are against air travel increasing as a concept not anything specific like a 3rd runway at LHR. That just leaves Boris, surely the UK will not gamble its future on this fallacy to purely please his ego?
I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!
LHR 3rd Runway
CONS
- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.
New airport/Boris Island
etcCONS
- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC
Honestly the list is endless. Most tellingly of all, whenever I see a programme on LHR (BBC recently spent a few nights live there) or indeed even meet someone who lives under LHR's flightpath people always just brush of the concept of noise as they either say they are use to it or they appreciate it is massively important to sustain jobs. So if the surrounding area seems to be largely supportive of LHR and its future success then who is against the 3rd runway? The enviro mentalists possibly but then once a whole new airport becomes tangible in any way shape or form then they will soon cause a far bigger uproar. It's the dog with a bone mentality. Plus as far as I can see they are against air travel increasing as a concept not anything specific like a 3rd runway at LHR. That just leaves Boris, surely the UK will not gamble its future on this fallacy to purely please his ego?
I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
If only we knew (!)
There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 29th Jul 2013 at 21:20.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Monte Carlo
Age: 65
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The pax figures on nearly every flight quoted on that BBC prog were appalling !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
Yes its all about yield but the ATC guys and Gals seemed to be going thru hoops to shift an awful lot of tin with very few punters on-board !
At what point did you think, rather than reading this....
Heathrow - Press releases - Heathrow traffic and business commentary June 2013
...I will base an assessment of the load factors of 40,000 ATMs based on being told the occupancy of 5 of them. A statistical sample of 0.01%.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Crowle United Kingdom
Age: 50
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR should be already digging to build runway 3 and planning a fourth.
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.
A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.
Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.
Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.
And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.
A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.
Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.
Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.
And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before venting brilliant ideas here onyxcrowle, start by checking the actual passengers flows first. As an example the passengers to and from EU airports made out 44.1% of the international passengers at LHR in 2012, and you want to assign only one of four runways to it? To make it even worse. The aircraft used for these flights have usually less capacity than the longhaul aircraft and with that the movements share would easily be more than 50%.
Last edited by LN-KGL; 30th Jul 2013 at 19:51.
The aircraft used for these flights have usually less capacity than the longhaul aircraft and with that the movements share would easily be more than 50%.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “What I don't get about the expansion argument re London is the root of the opposition for a 3rd runway at LHR compared to a completely new airport in London. Is there even such an argument?”
It’s a story of half a century of short-sightedness and dithering, and a government scared to death of small vocal minority.
Quote: “It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “
No consensus that LHR is in the wrong place: 20 mi. west of London, near several major motorways and a main railway line (the fact that long distance trains cannot access LHR at airport junction is hardly the fault of the airport), sounds like a relatively good location, accessible from most of the UK. It can't be any nearer to London because of the urbanisation that surrounds London.
Quote: “Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “
LHR 3rd Runway
CONS
- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.
New airport/Boris Island etc
CONS
- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC”
Your list of “cons” for each says it all!
In the case of a third rwy, “will create more noise” is listed as a con, but it applies equally to new rwys anywhere, also, and this is an important point, by the time this rwy is built (if ever) aircraft will be even quieter, cleaner and more fuel efficient than now.
As for the anti-aviation environmentalists (sic), let's face it, they are equally opposed to an estuary airport, or any airport anywhere.
Quote: “I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!”
Some eco-warriors from outside the area;
some “celebrities” jumping on the bandwagon;
some politicians (both local and national) out to make a name for themselves;
some residents but not as many as one might think;
the Libdems and the Greens;
a small vocal group of fairly well-off people who live miles from the airport, and believe, wrongly, that their property prices will fall.
Quote: “There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.”
No, it’s not a vote winner/loser. Almost no voters will switch their allegiances on the issue of LHR expansion, Let‘s say that a “handful” may do so, but certainly not enough for a seat to change hands (that is the role of UKIP). There are plenty of issues much further up the list of priorities.
If it really was a vote-changing issue, do you not think that at least one of the various anti-airport expansion groups would have put up candidates for election (either at council or Parliamentary level) somewhere in the country?
It’s a story of half a century of short-sightedness and dithering, and a government scared to death of small vocal minority.
Quote: “It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “
No consensus that LHR is in the wrong place: 20 mi. west of London, near several major motorways and a main railway line (the fact that long distance trains cannot access LHR at airport junction is hardly the fault of the airport), sounds like a relatively good location, accessible from most of the UK. It can't be any nearer to London because of the urbanisation that surrounds London.
Quote: “Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: “
LHR 3rd Runway
CONS
- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.
New airport/Boris Island etc
CONS
- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC”
Your list of “cons” for each says it all!
In the case of a third rwy, “will create more noise” is listed as a con, but it applies equally to new rwys anywhere, also, and this is an important point, by the time this rwy is built (if ever) aircraft will be even quieter, cleaner and more fuel efficient than now.
As for the anti-aviation environmentalists (sic), let's face it, they are equally opposed to an estuary airport, or any airport anywhere.
Quote: “I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!”
Some eco-warriors from outside the area;
some “celebrities” jumping on the bandwagon;
some politicians (both local and national) out to make a name for themselves;
some residents but not as many as one might think;
the Libdems and the Greens;
a small vocal group of fairly well-off people who live miles from the airport, and believe, wrongly, that their property prices will fall.
Quote: “There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.”
No, it’s not a vote winner/loser. Almost no voters will switch their allegiances on the issue of LHR expansion, Let‘s say that a “handful” may do so, but certainly not enough for a seat to change hands (that is the role of UKIP). There are plenty of issues much further up the list of priorities.
If it really was a vote-changing issue, do you not think that at least one of the various anti-airport expansion groups would have put up candidates for election (either at council or Parliamentary level) somewhere in the country?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Jul 2013 at 20:06.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “LHR should be already digging to build runway 3 and planning a fourth.
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.”
If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians, 2 more rwys would almost certainly have been built years ago, after all, LHR expansion is a very good business case.
Quote: “A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.”
It’s more likely that 4 rwys would be 2 for landing and 2 for takeoffs for most of the time, as segregated mode and alternation would need to be retained.
If the the two streams of landing and taking off traffic were to be separated by type, it might be better to do it by aircraft size (to minimise differential separation requirements between aircraft) or by proximity to terminals (to minimise taxiing times). Frankly, can’t see separation by destination being suitable.
Quote: “Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.”
Our economy needs this desparately!
Quote: “Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.”
Don’t think BA would necessarily have routes to every regional airport, though expect it would be more than 7! More importantly, other smaller UK carriers would have access to a 3/4-rwy LHR, and on the busier routes, there could be more than one carrier.
With smaller aircraft, they might be better placed to serve the thinner routes, providing for both commuter traffic and for feeding the longhaul routes. They would be codeshare/interlining opportunities with BA/VS and/or the alliances. This would be a massive boost to some struggling smaller airports.
Could see some smaller carriers at an expanded LHR, perhaps BD regional, BE, T3, WX (if still around), etc., as was the case back in the day.
As for the no frills carriers at LHR, maybe U2, doubtful FR, and think that the likes of BY, TT and ZB would stay at LGW.
All conjecture, of course.
Quote: “And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.”
Exactly!
Its idiocy on a monumental scale to STILL be spending money on planning all this and yet spending money on surveys to level it all and move it somewhere else.
The world didnt end when Manchester opened its second runway.
LHR needs A fourth and two more Terminals.”
If LHR did not need “permission” to do it from dithering politicians, 2 more rwys would almost certainly have been built years ago, after all, LHR expansion is a very good business case.
Quote: “A Runway dedicated to be the busiest short haul domestic runway possible with its own dedicated terminal.
Covering Uk and Irish flights. Runway needs to be long enough to allow faster throughput.
This would allow all these struggling domestic airports direct links to Lhr. Setup code shares for all landing airlines.
Then The extra runway and terminal (rwy4).
Make it Europe/Russia etc only.
Then leave the rest to long haul.
The other two runways can be finaly have enough slots to bring in thise much needed routes..
The domestic terminals must allow interlining from all carriers and perhaps even cater for slower prop traffic.”
It’s more likely that 4 rwys would be 2 for landing and 2 for takeoffs for most of the time, as segregated mode and alternation would need to be retained.
If the the two streams of landing and taking off traffic were to be separated by type, it might be better to do it by aircraft size (to minimise differential separation requirements between aircraft) or by proximity to terminals (to minimise taxiing times). Frankly, can’t see separation by destination being suitable.
Quote: “Our economy needs this . If it gets this wrong Boris and The tories will go down in history as another beeching the guy who singled handedly crippled the nation of lifeline services for which tho nation has a basic right to.”
Our economy needs this desparately!
Quote: “Bring back Ba to all our regional airports.
Id bet if done and priced right youd have a real shake up and fight back from the locos.”
Don’t think BA would necessarily have routes to every regional airport, though expect it would be more than 7! More importantly, other smaller UK carriers would have access to a 3/4-rwy LHR, and on the busier routes, there could be more than one carrier.
With smaller aircraft, they might be better placed to serve the thinner routes, providing for both commuter traffic and for feeding the longhaul routes. They would be codeshare/interlining opportunities with BA/VS and/or the alliances. This would be a massive boost to some struggling smaller airports.
Could see some smaller carriers at an expanded LHR, perhaps BD regional, BE, T3, WX (if still around), etc., as was the case back in the day.
As for the no frills carriers at LHR, maybe U2, doubtful FR, and think that the likes of BY, TT and ZB would stay at LGW.
All conjecture, of course.
Quote: “And maybe then we can have an air travel system we can be proud of.
So come on Boris n Cameron quit dithering get on n give us two new runways and the terminals we need.
Before every airport in the uk ends up being a pick up point for Klm and diverts all that money and custom into european hands.”
Exactly!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 30th Jul 2013 at 20:11.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: far too low
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I normally don't peddle to these types of questions, but i guess like all humans I'm fairly curious. I was flying back through Maastricht airspace earlier this evening when all Heathrow bound aircraft were told to come back to min clean. The controller told everyone that an aircraft had had a bird strike which had caused a fire and one runway was closed pending investigation. Everyone was told to expect a 25-30 min delay, however when a/c were hitting LAM they were given significantly longer EAT's. I don't operate to LHR so have nothing else to add, but would normally expect to read something like this on the BBC app or pprune, but nothing.
Again apologies, but my interest got piqued.
Again apologies, but my interest got piqued.