HEATHROW
Is it really better to operate the system at 98% rather than 95%?
Operating at 98% means that you can squeeze in 1300+ flights per day, and you can then expect around 300 days per year when everything goes more-or-less as planned, plus another 50 or so days when significant delays occur but the schedule is eventually recoverable.
The price you pay is the remaining 15 days when things really go pear-shaped and you don't have a hope in h*ll of getting things back on track.
The buzz-word nowadays is "resilience" - if you increase capacity by building more runways, you can use that increased capacity by scheduling more flights, eventually getting back up to 98% utilisation again, or you can constrain demand so that you are handling fewer flights than the maximum capacity, but with more ability to recover from disruption.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole point about stacking is a good one, and one I'm personally surprised that Heathrow haven't made more of in their proposals for a third runway.
By restricting operations to, for arguments' sake, 85% of capacity (with a third runway) they surely could argue that there would be far less aircraft circling over London and less fuel burnt. I'm not about to do the maths projections (I'll leave that to someone far more able than myself!) but seems that they have missed a sound environmental argument.
Of course it could be because they have absolutely no intention of limiting the capacity and will just ramp it right up towards 98% again I suppose...! (ahem, cynic!)
By restricting operations to, for arguments' sake, 85% of capacity (with a third runway) they surely could argue that there would be far less aircraft circling over London and less fuel burnt. I'm not about to do the maths projections (I'll leave that to someone far more able than myself!) but seems that they have missed a sound environmental argument.
Of course it could be because they have absolutely no intention of limiting the capacity and will just ramp it right up towards 98% again I suppose...! (ahem, cynic!)
.... 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.
I think the case for R3 will be partly a case based on operating more efficiently, not purely a capacity case.
It does seem extraordinary that this basic and simplistic issue is not only not addressed, but actually seems to be increasing. As sector times have been progressively eased out (particularly on domestics) to ensure on-time compliance, it seems any arrival a minute or more before the target time is just let go by the ground crew. That's not what the additional time allowance is for at all.
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
' ..... It's a business decision.'
Yes, so the interesting question given the number of businesses involved, as implied by WHBM, is how you get the commercial interests of every infrastructure provider and operator to line up to produce a good result. I'd prefer to see regulation in the direction of buying more resilience as long as it is not then frittered away by sloppy operation.
Yes, so the interesting question given the number of businesses involved, as implied by WHBM, is how you get the commercial interests of every infrastructure provider and operator to line up to produce a good result. I'd prefer to see regulation in the direction of buying more resilience as long as it is not then frittered away by sloppy operation.
Paxing All Over The World
I agree DaveReidUK. Since EGLL is owned by a commercial company they will have NO CHOICE but to operate at max capacity as quickly as possible after (if) R3 is built.
WHBM
Ah yes, but more ground crew cost more money and are a direct drain on the bottom line (= shareprice = bonus = promotion).
If BA had somewhere else to go, or some sanction they could bring against BAA? But all they can do is thump the table and demand more ground crew.
Whether the ground crew are BAA plc or IAG plc, the problem is the same. bottom line (= shareprice = bonus = promotion).
Since the late 1980s, service to the customer has been replaced with service to the share holder. And the comments in PPRuNe every day show the result.
WHBM
... just waiting for the ground crew to turn up...
If BA had somewhere else to go, or some sanction they could bring against BAA? But all they can do is thump the table and demand more ground crew.
Whether the ground crew are BAA plc or IAG plc, the problem is the same. bottom line (= shareprice = bonus = promotion).
Since the late 1980s, service to the customer has been replaced with service to the share holder. And the comments in PPRuNe every day show the result.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the record, BA self-handle at LHR, so it is their own ground staff causing such delays. BA also allocate stands at T5, operate the stand guidance systems, and operate the airbridges.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA self handle at T3/T5 but ramp is outsourced to Menzies at T1, a legacy fron BMI but still in place. I would say the deterioration in service quality is actually consumer driven as people demand to fly for peanuts at the same time as expecting more than peanuts to eat. It's a vicious circle and has seen experienced and loyal ground staff filed under "over paid" and replaced by third party handlers in airline uniforms filed under "grossly underpaid". Consequently you're no longer fishing in the same talent pool as talented and able people won't work long hours for derisory money with no benefits.
Hence they no longer have decsion making authority and passengers are encouraged to call an expensive number or login online.
Good service comes at a price and it's not one legacy carriers can afford to charge in such a competitive market.
Hence they no longer have decsion making authority and passengers are encouraged to call an expensive number or login online.
Good service comes at a price and it's not one legacy carriers can afford to charge in such a competitive market.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they will have NO CHOICE but to operate at max capacity as quickly as possible after (if) R3 is built
It is entirely plausible that regulatory conditions including an artificial ceiling on slot % and indeed their usage could be placed on any future operations.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: MAN
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ACL don't determine the number of slots - they just coordinate their allocation. The number of slots to be allocated is basically down to the airport operator, often based on simulation exercises aimed at keeping delays within "acceptable" levels.
It seems that actual delays generally exceed the target "acceptable" levels, so the whole process needs to be reconsidered. I agree that the regulator might well seek to limit LHR slots if delays become excessive.
It seems that actual delays generally exceed the target "acceptable" levels, so the whole process needs to be reconsidered. I agree that the regulator might well seek to limit LHR slots if delays become excessive.
Heathrow's submission to the Airports Commission identifies a total capacity with the (preferred) northwest runway option of 740,000 ATMs per annum.
On the subject of resilience, it says:
"we estimate that in 2030 a three-runway Heathrow will be handling approximately 570,000 ATMs and 100 million passengers. This level of operation leaves plenty of spare runway capacity, providing additional resilience for the operation on the 10-15 “red days” per year when adverse conditions can lead to significant operational disruption e.g. as a result of severe weather. During the 2030’s and beyond, we envisage that ATMs and passenger numbers would continue to grow towards full capacity. High levels of resilience would be sustained by improvements in operating capability and technology, developed over the intervening twenty to thirty years."
On the subject of resilience, it says:
"we estimate that in 2030 a three-runway Heathrow will be handling approximately 570,000 ATMs and 100 million passengers. This level of operation leaves plenty of spare runway capacity, providing additional resilience for the operation on the 10-15 “red days” per year when adverse conditions can lead to significant operational disruption e.g. as a result of severe weather. During the 2030’s and beyond, we envisage that ATMs and passenger numbers would continue to grow towards full capacity. High levels of resilience would be sustained by improvements in operating capability and technology, developed over the intervening twenty to thirty years."
BA self handle at T3/T5 but ramp is outsourced to Menzies at T1, a legacy fron BMI but still in place. I would say the deterioration in service quality is actually consumer driven as people demand to fly for peanuts at the same time as expecting more than peanuts to eat.
Is Heathrow actually the only place on the network where BA ramp is self-handled ?
It's a similar thing to the winter turnrounds, where BA de-icing at Heathrow invariably seems accompanied by long delays in turning up (and consequent delay to the next aircraft on the gate), whereas at overseas points it seems to turn up when required.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that, based on my last 12 months' experiences with BA, that the overall greatest loss of time has not been holding in the stacks, nor waiting for gates that are occupied by other aircraft, but holding on the ground adjacent to the gate just waiting for the ground crew to turn up to allow the aircraft to taxi into position, or even get the bus alongside on a bus gate.
Heathrow's submission to the Airports Commission identifies a total capacity with the (preferred) northwest runway option of 740,000 ATMs per annum.
On the subject of resilience, it says:
"we estimate that in 2030 a three-runway Heathrow will be handling approximately 570,000 ATMs and 100 million passengers. This level of operation leaves plenty of spare runway capacity, providing additional resilience for the operation on the 10-15 “red days” per year when adverse conditions can lead to significant operational disruption e.g. as a result of severe weather. During the 2030’s and beyond, we envisage that ATMs and passenger numbers would continue to grow towards full capacity. High levels of resilience would be sustained by improvements in operating capability and technology, developed over the intervening twenty to thirty years."
However it's all theoretical, a "do nothing" policy is likely to prevail in 2015.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point they are not the greatest with the basics all too often. They did self handle at Gatwick until recently but that's gone to Swissport for the ramp. When BA were the main player in T1 it was much more noticeable as the cul de sac layout meant BMI and others were badly delayed as a result of BA faffing about waiting for stands and guidance.
Paxing All Over The World
I have a little sympathy for BA who are in the Catch 22 of prices as well illustrated by Skipness. But they might like to consider the 'back to basics' of looking after the staff, who will look after the customers who will look after the shareholders.' I know, I know, I'm old. 
Slight thread drift
BUT, as we have been saying for some time, mature companies don't work that way. Any corporate entity that is more than 50 years old (often less) will start placing itself before the people it first rose by serving. This happens in politics (natch) and two obvious examples are:
Church: (i) The Catholics look as if they have appointed a Chairman of the Board who might begin to get them out of their corporate mess.
Church: (ii) The Church of England still places their corporate self before all else. They have closed ranks so that they are starting to fall as one. They all know that there has to be a split - but no one is man enough to start the split. (the split is over homosexuality and women priests)
Police: In the UK, we are seeing too many examples of the internal politics of the (various) forces being used to shore up the corporate 'front'. The revelations about Hillsborough and 'plebgate' are two such. Currently, no one wants to sort this out.
BA is well into the 'protect the shareholders and board at all costs as we are relying on them for promotion, preferment and money' phase.
I realise, of course, that very few at the top of BA will see it that way but that's because they are on the inside looking out!
Ah well, soon be a bright new year ...
Slight thread drift
BUT, as we have been saying for some time, mature companies don't work that way. Any corporate entity that is more than 50 years old (often less) will start placing itself before the people it first rose by serving. This happens in politics (natch) and two obvious examples are:
Church: (i) The Catholics look as if they have appointed a Chairman of the Board who might begin to get them out of their corporate mess.
Church: (ii) The Church of England still places their corporate self before all else. They have closed ranks so that they are starting to fall as one. They all know that there has to be a split - but no one is man enough to start the split. (the split is over homosexuality and women priests)
Police: In the UK, we are seeing too many examples of the internal politics of the (various) forces being used to shore up the corporate 'front'. The revelations about Hillsborough and 'plebgate' are two such. Currently, no one wants to sort this out.
BA is well into the 'protect the shareholders and board at all costs as we are relying on them for promotion, preferment and money' phase.
I realise, of course, that very few at the top of BA will see it that way but that's because they are on the inside looking out!
Ah well, soon be a bright new year ...
Last edited by PAXboy; 29th Dec 2013 at 13:58. Reason: typographical
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a little sympathy for BA who are in the Catch 22 of prices as well illustrated by Skipmess. But they might like to consider the 'back to basics' of looking after the staff, who will look after the customers who will look after the shareholders.' I know, I know, I'm old.
Good bit of thread drift, gives us all something to think about.
Your point is an interesting one, PAXboy.
If I may hijack the thread slightly to comment further:
Appalling customer service, and the attitude that customers just disturb the peace of the employees, is common in public-sector organizations, and some formerly in the public sector. There also seems to be a correlation between heavy trade union involvement and poor customer service.
Secondly, the top level of management (CEO and main board) are rightly bonused on shareholder return - after all, it is the shareholders whose interests they represent. But lower levels of management are in my opinion to blame in that their attitude is the most short-term being focused on this month or this year's figures. That in turn is the responsibility of top management, but one on which they may not be sufficiently focused.
If I may hijack the thread slightly to comment further:
Appalling customer service, and the attitude that customers just disturb the peace of the employees, is common in public-sector organizations, and some formerly in the public sector. There also seems to be a correlation between heavy trade union involvement and poor customer service.
Secondly, the top level of management (CEO and main board) are rightly bonused on shareholder return - after all, it is the shareholders whose interests they represent. But lower levels of management are in my opinion to blame in that their attitude is the most short-term being focused on this month or this year's figures. That in turn is the responsibility of top management, but one on which they may not be sufficiently focused.
Appalling customer service, and the attitude that customers just disturb the peace of the employees, is common in public-sector organizations, and some formerly in the public sector. There also seems to be a correlation between heavy trade union involvement and poor customer service.
SWBKCB -
Exactly as I said:
One who does appear focused is EasyJet's Carolyn McCall. She has multiplied shareholder return by concentrating on customer service, and getting that message throughout the company.
Exactly as I said:
That in turn is the responsibility of top management, but one on which they may not be sufficiently focused.
Paxing All Over The World
I agree SWBKCB. The actions of middle mgmt are the sole responsibility of senior mgmt.
Those down the line (99%) behave as they sense from above. Any organisation takes it's behaviour from the top - that is the nature of the human animal. We are tribal and there is a boss to whom we respond, often subconciously and without direct instructions. One of the most vivid examples of today concerns the phone hacking trials and how staff behaved, but that is sub judice.
On the other hand, consider when BA was privatised (1987) and a new structure was made. There was a full staff training programme to focus on the customer (I think it was 'Putting People First'?) and (as a customer) I think it worked. Across the next 20 years that faded steadily as the dead weight of corporate life once again took hold. it is now 26 years and counting.
On another tack, I have just remembered my father telling me about the dog days of WWII in the RAF. How the permanent force - who had been there before all the conscripts and volunteers - started to reassert itself. They started to tell the men to dress more smartly and re-instigated church parade on Sundays. My father said that that was not he and others joined up for and he knew that he would have to leave the RAF.
plus ça change ...
Those down the line (99%) behave as they sense from above. Any organisation takes it's behaviour from the top - that is the nature of the human animal. We are tribal and there is a boss to whom we respond, often subconciously and without direct instructions. One of the most vivid examples of today concerns the phone hacking trials and how staff behaved, but that is sub judice.
On the other hand, consider when BA was privatised (1987) and a new structure was made. There was a full staff training programme to focus on the customer (I think it was 'Putting People First'?) and (as a customer) I think it worked. Across the next 20 years that faded steadily as the dead weight of corporate life once again took hold. it is now 26 years and counting.
On another tack, I have just remembered my father telling me about the dog days of WWII in the RAF. How the permanent force - who had been there before all the conscripts and volunteers - started to reassert itself. They started to tell the men to dress more smartly and re-instigated church parade on Sundays. My father said that that was not he and others joined up for and he knew that he would have to leave the RAF.
plus ça change ...
Heathrow bosses to consider extended runway proposal as alternative to R3 ?
Unlikely as it sounds, yesterday's FT reports that HAH may carry out a detailed examination of, and possibly even adopt, the Heathrow Hub proposal to extend the northern runway as an alternative to building a new one.
This will, we're told, depend on the findings of a proposed public consultation to establish whether community opposition is greater towards the idea of more areas being exposed to noise (under the R3 flightpath) or to the almost complete loss of respite alternation implied by the runway extension alternative (although R3 will also adversely impact respite).
Heathrow to examine alternative plan to third runway - FT.com
This will, we're told, depend on the findings of a proposed public consultation to establish whether community opposition is greater towards the idea of more areas being exposed to noise (under the R3 flightpath) or to the almost complete loss of respite alternation implied by the runway extension alternative (although R3 will also adversely impact respite).
Heathrow to examine alternative plan to third runway - FT.com