HEATHROW
Re: Austin; that's the sort of route the B787 was designed for. A long range destination that doesn't have the demand of a B773 or a B744 - new markets per se. There's a bit of transit potential with American operating routes into its main hubs and with JetBlue the dominant airline.
I'd gather there are many more routes in the pipeline with a similar profile.
I'd gather there are many more routes in the pipeline with a similar profile.
From a report today into Border Agency performance at Heathrow.
"..... targets for waiting times at Heathrow and other airports were being met more regularly: 99% of sampled passengers from outside Europe cleared passport control within 45 minutes between May 2012 and April 2013 compared with 81% in April 2012."
BBC News - Border staff 'taken off' immigration searches to process queues
45 minutes ? What an absolutely pathetic TARGET, to try and claim credit for meeting - except they didn't even achieve that completely. 45 minutes just to clear passport control for transfer pax will mean a significant proportion will miss their connecting flight.
"..... targets for waiting times at Heathrow and other airports were being met more regularly: 99% of sampled passengers from outside Europe cleared passport control within 45 minutes between May 2012 and April 2013 compared with 81% in April 2012."
BBC News - Border staff 'taken off' immigration searches to process queues
45 minutes ? What an absolutely pathetic TARGET, to try and claim credit for meeting - except they didn't even achieve that completely. 45 minutes just to clear passport control for transfer pax will mean a significant proportion will miss their connecting flight.
Heathrow required reduce movement rate
Well that is how the new CAA rules would seem to have it - 4 nm wake-turbulence minima will have to be appled from next year between heavy departures. Without mixed mode surely this will cut the departure rather a lot.
CAA SN 2013/18
CAA SN 2013/18
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, I'm no expert but might this sentence have something to do with a middle way between the 4NM requirement and the current procedures?
Therefore, the UK criteria will be accompanied by an allowance
for an alternative means of compliance subject to acceptable supporting safety assurance and associated enhanced local safety monitoring processes.
for an alternative means of compliance subject to acceptable supporting safety assurance and associated enhanced local safety monitoring processes.
I think it's safe to assume that the scenario has been/is being extensively modelled by NATS and BAA to assess the potential impact and look at ways of mitigating it.
Just over a third of Heathrow's movements are heavies, and on a typical day about half of those will depart following another heavy.
Just over a third of Heathrow's movements are heavies, and on a typical day about half of those will depart following another heavy.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aeromad.
seems to say that they are introducing it but doesn't have to be adhered too as long as you comply with other conditions.
In that case its a nothing document and little will change apart from airlines scribbling out some new forms to give reasons why you don't need to do it .
Or am I being cynical here ?
Nigel
seems to say that they are introducing it but doesn't have to be adhered too as long as you comply with other conditions.
In that case its a nothing document and little will change apart from airlines scribbling out some new forms to give reasons why you don't need to do it .
Or am I being cynical here ?
Nigel
In that case its a nothing document and little will change apart from airlines scribbling out some new forms to give reasons why you don't need to do it.
So by no means a "nothing document".
Paxing All Over The World
DaveReidUK
An outsider here: If the document sets out to 'apply' new standards but also allows how the existing standards may be retained? That's a kind of nothing! IF that is case, then it's a calassic of regulators being seen to do something but simply shifting future blame off themselves.
So by no means a "nothing document".
Perhaps instead a case of the regulator wanting to give themselves more powers for the future but realising they cannot achieve this without permitting the status quo to carry on for the time being. If any airport should experience a change in operations in the future (quite likely as life is rarely constant) then the CAA magically gain the power to tell airport operators what to do about heavies, while preventing any bad news appearing in the press now when the new rules are published.
A nothing document in 2013 but come 2018, likely to be non-trivial in its impact on airport operators.
A nothing document in 2013 but come 2018, likely to be non-trivial in its impact on airport operators.
If the document sets out to 'apply' new standards but also allows how the existing standards may be retained?
It makes provision for alternative means of compliance. That's compliance with the new standards, not the old ones.
Nowhere does it say, or even hint, that continuing with the status quo is an option.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidReid,
It doesn't say what these new provisions would be, surely its either increased or its not how can there be a middle way. ?
Reduce planes thrust on take off to reduce wake vortex for the plane behind, take off further down the runway ?? Im struggling aren't I.
Can you add your thoughts what these vague exemptions might be then as it sounds like a complete fob at present, but Im an amateur?
Paxboy, you seem to be thinking the same as me.
Nigel
It doesn't say what these new provisions would be, surely its either increased or its not how can there be a middle way. ?
Reduce planes thrust on take off to reduce wake vortex for the plane behind, take off further down the runway ?? Im struggling aren't I.
Can you add your thoughts what these vague exemptions might be then as it sounds like a complete fob at present, but Im an amateur?
Paxboy, you seem to be thinking the same as me.
Nigel
Last edited by nigel osborne; 8th Sep 2013 at 18:31.
It doesn't say what these new provisions would be, surely its either increased or its not how can there be a middle way.
The CAA announces its objective (to lessen the risk of wake turbulence encounters between consecutive heavy departures) and its intended means of achieving that (4.0nm departure separation), while leaving the door open for those affected to propose alternative means of compliance which will still satisfy the objective.
But it's not up to the CAA to suggest what those alternative means might be. That's up to the airport operators - the CAA's role is to evaluate any alternative proposals and to rule whether they are acceptable or not.
I have no idea what these altenatives might be, but I wouldn't underestimate the ingenuity of NATS and BAA, so watch this space.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DavidReidUK,
Many thanks, will watch with interest to see what they come up with then.
Will see if any actually have to adhere to 4 mile separation,or if they can all use the exemptions when announced.
Nigel
Many thanks, will watch with interest to see what they come up with then.
Will see if any actually have to adhere to 4 mile separation,or if they can all use the exemptions when announced.
Nigel
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the document says is that the CAA, on the basis of reported encounters, believes the existing separation is insufficient. ICAO has a different separation but when asked had no research or evidence to justify their figure. That ICAO figure is currently the only alternative so the CAA intends to implement the ICAO figure unless somebody can justify a different figure. Rather than fund research and modelling to establish the right figure the CAA is effectively asking those who have most to lose from this change to fund that research for them.
No Govt decision on R3 will be taken until at least 2015 so we are unlikely to see R3 before 2025 at the earliest.
Assuming we don't get a repeat of the 2008 credit crunch, how many slots might one expect to be sold by weaker airlines to stronger airlines between now and 2020 ? How many airlines might end up leaving Heathrow and how many destinations might be deleted from the Heathrow destination list ?
Assuming we don't get a repeat of the 2008 credit crunch, how many slots might one expect to be sold by weaker airlines to stronger airlines between now and 2020 ? How many airlines might end up leaving Heathrow and how many destinations might be deleted from the Heathrow destination list ?
Paxing All Over The World
This sounds like mealy mouthed govt at it's worst. 
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Correct me if I'm wrong:
- They can't prove that things are bad
- but want others to pay to find out if things are bad
- meanwhile, they'll set in motion rules that will make things even worse at EGLL