HEATHROW
It's quite straightforward to compare the numbers arriving who go down the Transfer corridor with the number going out through the main immigration exit. I know some are in London for less than 24 hours and counted as 'transfer' but nevertheless the difference between transfers and arrivals is very large.
I am actually astounded at this figure of 37% for transfer traffic
If you're confused by that, you're in good company - earlier this year the GLA's Transport Committee asserted that "There are disputes about the extent to which Heathrow is operating as a hub airport. It is not clear how many of Heathrow's passengers are transferring with estimates ranging from 22 to 36 per cent".
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...%202013%29.pdf (Page 5)
It turned out that there is no "dispute" - they simply didn't understand that there are two different ways of calculating the proportion of transfer passengers.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technically it isn't 37% of passengers using LHR - that percentage is derived by counting every transit passenger twice, once on arrival and again on departure.
If you're confused by that, you're in good company - earlier this year the GLA's Transport Committee asserted that "There are disputes about the extent to which Heathrow is operating as a hub airport. It is not clear how many of Heathrow's passengers are transferring with estimates ranging from 22 to 36 per cent".
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...%202013%29.pdf (Page 5)
It turned out that there is no "dispute" - they simply didn't understand that there are two different ways of calculating the proportion of transfer passengers.
If you're confused by that, you're in good company - earlier this year the GLA's Transport Committee asserted that "There are disputes about the extent to which Heathrow is operating as a hub airport. It is not clear how many of Heathrow's passengers are transferring with estimates ranging from 22 to 36 per cent".
http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/defau...%202013%29.pdf (Page 5)
It turned out that there is no "dispute" - they simply didn't understand that there are two different ways of calculating the proportion of transfer passengers.
Doesn't matter, it's generally accepted as about 30% (compared to 70% at AMS). What matters is that transfer pax make some routes viable that otherwise would not be, and that expands choice for all pax.
Wouldn't trust any of the nonsense that comes out of the GLA/TFL as far as aviation/airport policy is concerned. It's also very biased in one direction. The mayor's aviation adviser isn't actually an aviation expert.
Moreover, despite mayoral delusions of grandeur, aviation policy is beyond the remit of the GLA, it's not a local government function. More public money being wasted?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The mayor's aviation adviser isn't actually an aviation expert.
Typical privileged financial services background, i.e. BANKER, he is now a councilor for a jolly nice constituency in a well to do area that despairs at the frightful noise from the ghastly airport (the one that's been there since 1947).
Anyway the lovely Daniel wants to spend BILLIONS of pounds of money we haven't got to keep the local rotary club happy.
Councillor Daniel Moylan
Just look at the photo he chooses to use and decide for yourselves.
This gentlemen claiming to be an aviation adviser seems to my mind to be misrepresenting his credentials somewhat.
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 18th Dec 2013 at 17:20.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But he's a POLITICIAN Skipness - this won't be decided by the aviation business - if it had we'd have concreted most of W London over years ago for runways
The issue is that here are enough people who are very very strongly against Heathrow expansion
Since we're not HK or Singapore there is due process here- and the antis have enough time and money to stretch the process over years & years. No politician will want to get bogged down in this - they want things to happen on quickly on their watch, not to spend decades in the courts and in front of Commissions of Enquiry
you can see how chary the Govt has been on the latest announcement - anything but supportive I'd say - they just wish it would go away (again)
The issue is that here are enough people who are very very strongly against Heathrow expansion
Since we're not HK or Singapore there is due process here- and the antis have enough time and money to stretch the process over years & years. No politician will want to get bogged down in this - they want things to happen on quickly on their watch, not to spend decades in the courts and in front of Commissions of Enquiry
you can see how chary the Govt has been on the latest announcement - anything but supportive I'd say - they just wish it would go away (again)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To an outsider the whole Heathrow issue seems to be problem solving along the lines 'If you build it they will come'.
In passing, according to Heathrow Funding Limited definitions: 16/10/2013
Transfer” traffic relates to passengers who use an airport for the sole purpose of connecting from one aircraft to another. They are counted as both arriving and departing passengers. “
Transit” or “In-transit” traffic refers to passengers who arrive and depart on the same aircraft within 24 hours. “
Point-to-point” or “origin and destination” traffic refers to any traffic that is not transfer or transit traffic and originates from or terminates at a particular airport.
In passing, according to Heathrow Funding Limited definitions: 16/10/2013
Transfer” traffic relates to passengers who use an airport for the sole purpose of connecting from one aircraft to another. They are counted as both arriving and departing passengers. “
Transit” or “In-transit” traffic refers to passengers who arrive and depart on the same aircraft within 24 hours. “
Point-to-point” or “origin and destination” traffic refers to any traffic that is not transfer or transit traffic and originates from or terminates at a particular airport.
"Transit" or "In-transit" traffic refers to passengers who arrive and depart on the same aircraft within 24 hours."
Otherwise it would include anyone who arrived on a morning flight from, say, Edinburgh or Leeds and returned home on an evening flight that happened to be operated by the same aircraft - that's obviously not the intended meaning.
As far as I'm aware, there are only two flights that currently deposit transit passengers at Heathrow: the 3-times-weekly KU101 which flies Kuwait-LHR-JFK with a 2 hour stop and KU102 in the opposite direction, so the number of transit passengers per year must be very low.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: u.k.
Age: 56
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the CAA passenger stats for November the Philippine Airlines flight carried 2760 passengers since it started on 04/11/13 until 30/11/13. that is 20 round trips on a 777-300 that would make an average load of 70 people.
Is this a typo or quite common for LHR to have such low load factors?
Is this a typo or quite common for LHR to have such low load factors?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've met him, he's really not.Tory Councillor and millionaire, most recently from the public payroll, never held a job in aviation. He's worryingly similar to Bojo in speech and mannerisms, it's very creepy up close.
As far as I'm aware, there are only two flights that currently deposit transit passengers at Heathrow: the 3-times-weekly KU101 which flies Kuwait-LHR-JFK with a 2 hour stop and KU102 in the opposite direction, so the number of transit passengers per year must be very low.
Indeed, this is the case now that AI no longer does the daily BOM-LHR-JFK (and v.v.)
I see (BBC TV news this morning) that the UK-based Greenpeace mob who attacked the Russian oil exploration vessel recently, and who have been held in custody in Russia before release, arrived back in Britain today from St Petersburg - by taking Air France to Paris CDG and then Eurostar to London, because "they don't want to use Heathrow because of the 3rd runway proposal."
So it seems it's fine for Greenpeace to spend their (or to be more precise, their donors') money on a more expensive arrangement, use more carbon (one of their other cries I seem to recall), use Paris CDG airport which gobbled up far more land take than Heathrow has ever proposed, and support the French economy (who blew up their Rainbow Warrior ship a while ago), but never support the UK economy, whose public service broadcaster uniquely just reads out Greenpeace press releases as 'fact', nor support the UK aviation industry which carries the national economy along.
What a two-faced lot.
So it seems it's fine for Greenpeace to spend their (or to be more precise, their donors') money on a more expensive arrangement, use more carbon (one of their other cries I seem to recall), use Paris CDG airport which gobbled up far more land take than Heathrow has ever proposed, and support the French economy (who blew up their Rainbow Warrior ship a while ago), but never support the UK economy, whose public service broadcaster uniquely just reads out Greenpeace press releases as 'fact', nor support the UK aviation industry which carries the national economy along.
What a two-faced lot.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr WHBM
I had the exact same thoughts the levels of hyporcrisy are staggering ! From memory there are 4 runways at CDG too......who are funding new nuclear power stations in the UK ? Electricite de France........
I had the exact same thoughts the levels of hyporcrisy are staggering ! From memory there are 4 runways at CDG too......who are funding new nuclear power stations in the UK ? Electricite de France........
Paxing All Over The World
Yup. I gave up on G'peace some ten years ago. Nuclear is not ideal but since humans are not going to stop using electricity, it's the only answer. Fortunately, once the oil runs out, folks will get the general idea. 
Another good reason for G'e to support the 3rd is that it will reduce stacking and holding - which will mean less go-juice being burned up going round and round. But, obviously, burning less fuel is a bad idea.
Another good reason for G'e to support the 3rd is that it will reduce stacking and holding - which will mean less go-juice being burned up going round and round. But, obviously, burning less fuel is a bad idea.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R3 will reduce holding and fuel burn until commercial pressure quickly fills that runway capacity as well and you are back to square one with even more stacks and fuel burn
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see (BBC TV news this morning) that the UK-based Greenpeace mob who attacked the Russian oil exploration vessel recently, and who have been held in custody in Russia before release, arrived back in Britain today from St Petersburg - by taking Air France to Paris CDG and then Eurostar to London, because "they don't want to use Heathrow because of the 3rd runway proposal."
I had the exact same thoughts the levels of hyporcrisy are staggering ! From memory there are 4 runways at CDG too......who are funding new nuclear power stations in the UK ? Electricite de France........
Yup. I gave up on G'peace some ten years ago. Nuclear is not ideal but since humans are not going to stop using electricity, it's the only answer. Fortunately, once the oil runs out, folks will get the general idea.
Another good reason for G'e to support the 3rd is that it will reduce stacking and holding - which will mean less go-juice being burned up going round and round. But, obviously, burning less fuel is a bad idea.
Another good reason for G'e to support the 3rd is that it will reduce stacking and holding - which will mean less go-juice being burned up going round and round. But, obviously, burning less fuel is a bad idea.
Unfortunately they appear to have politicians by the "short and curlies".
R3 will reduce holding and fuel burn until commercial pressure quickly fills that runway capacity as well and you are back to square one with even more stacks and fuel burn
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 28th Dec 2013 at 23:51.
Paxing All Over The World
MAN777
Exactly! (and I have said as much before). If the UK wants 'light touch regulation' then airports will over book and stacks will occur and prices will go up to cover the fuel and time.
Of course, if you did regulate to limit stracking times, then they would say that they could not operate as cost effectively and ... put the prices up.
I love the modern world.
R3 will reduce holding and fuel burn until commercial pressure quickly fills that runway capacity as well and you are back to square one with even more stacks and fuel burn
Of course, if you did regulate to limit stracking times, then they would say that they could not operate as cost effectively and ... put the prices up.
I love the modern world.
If you want to run an airport at 98% of its theoretical capacity, the only way to do that is to have holding stacks that keep the landing runway(s) supplied with an uninterrupted stream of arriving aircraft.
That's not going to change, whether Heathrow has 2, 3 or 4 runways.
That's not going to change, whether Heathrow has 2, 3 or 4 runways.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really? Will LHR be full to capacity from day 1 whatever the capacity?
Is it really better to operate the system at 98% rather than 95%? That must depend on the shape of the delay curves but in principle say 20 mins knocked off the journey times could be worth a lot to the business traffic, and improved reliability could be worth a lot to the connecting traffic. Obviously that is not solely a function of runway capacity.
I think the case for R3 will be partly a case based on operating more efficiently, not purely a capacity case.
Is it really better to operate the system at 98% rather than 95%? That must depend on the shape of the delay curves but in principle say 20 mins knocked off the journey times could be worth a lot to the business traffic, and improved reliability could be worth a lot to the connecting traffic. Obviously that is not solely a function of runway capacity.
I think the case for R3 will be partly a case based on operating more efficiently, not purely a capacity case.