HEATHROW
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Southampton, U.K
Posts: 1,263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Harry - is one inferring that one places ones maids and butlers in Business Class with all of the riff raff? That is a disgusting way to treat them, I always have mine travel in 'regular' First, so they are nearer to me if I require their assistance!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.
Started by EK, QF and SQ a few years ago.
Heathrow airport will tell the Airports Commission later this month that there “may be a case for introducing a congestion charge” for people travelling to the airport.
(1) a drop off/pick up charge; and
(2) it was way into the future, after the third rwy was in use (so more than likely never!).
If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south. Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: London
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had gotten the impression that this was:
(1) a drop off/pick up charge; and
(2) it was way into the future, after the third rwy was in use (so more than likely never!).
If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south. Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.
(1) a drop off/pick up charge; and
(2) it was way into the future, after the third rwy was in use (so more than likely never!).
If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south. Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.
I would be pretty sure there would be no "free" time.
Just a flat daily charge similar to the London central zone only worse - At least residents their get discounts and electric cars are free.
I believe this is inevitable and certain within a few years with or without T6/R3.
Just more reason for anyone in the UK to avoid this airport more and more.
According to press releases about 'Residence' class Butlers will be trained at the famous Butler training establishment in London. Probably this one -
British Butler Institute
How they bring their skills to an aircraft who knows. However I can't imagine a Butler wafting around with one hand behind his back carrying a decanter of port on a tray in the other. Hope they pass their SEP course though.
Whose going to be the first to ask for an upgrade :-p
British Butler Institute
How they bring their skills to an aircraft who knows. However I can't imagine a Butler wafting around with one hand behind his back carrying a decanter of port on a tray in the other. Hope they pass their SEP course though.
Whose going to be the first to ask for an upgrade :-p
If it is going to be implemented, (and other airports do it), it would need to be after the public transport improvements have been completed, especially from the south.
"Once improvements to public transport to the airport have been delivered we believe there may be a case for a congestion charge"
Also, the first ten minutes needs to be free.
"Heathrow said a congestion charge would help to 'discourage drop off and pick up'"
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow alters runway plans to avoid digging up the M25 - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
Makes sense, have a look at the old plan to the new one keeping the current M25/M4 Junctions.
Original NW Option:
New NW Option:
Makes sense, have a look at the old plan to the new one keeping the current M25/M4 Junctions.
Original NW Option:
New NW Option:
Heathrow alters runway plans to avoid digging up the M25 - Transport - News - London Evening Standard
http://www.heathrowairport.com/stati...roach_2014.pdf (page 51)
Still, good to see that the ES's Transport Editor has a good grasp of vertical topography:
"Heathrow will build a 600-metre tunnel taking traffic under the M25"
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Stafford
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.
It's appears to have become a tradition.
Started by EK, QF and SQ a few years ago.
Not quite the case; EK first flew the A380 DXB-JFK, QF MEL-LAX and SQ SIN-SYD.
I see that Etihad will introduce their new A380 by serving Heathrow first.
It's appears to have become a tradition.
Started by EK, QF and SQ a few years ago.
Not quite the case; EK first flew the A380 DXB-JFK, QF MEL-LAX and SQ SIN-SYD.
Makes sense, have a look at the old plan to the new one keeping the current M25/M4 Junctions.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London
Age: 69
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would also make a good white-knuckle ride for the HS2 spur if it was to follow the indicative route in
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/defau...ved%20text.pdf
Over the top of the M25/M4 interchange, then racing down to go under the runway. FUN !!
http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/defau...ved%20text.pdf
Over the top of the M25/M4 interchange, then racing down to go under the runway. FUN !!
The high level links from the eastbound M4 to the southbound M25 (think doing Reading to T5), which is the top level in the M4/M25 junction, will never be able to be got down beneath the runway level in the space shown.
The revised NW plan appears to sever the Colnbrook bypass, leaving no route for existing A4 E-W non-motorway traffic other than through the middle of Poyle and Colnbrook. It's hard to believe that's what the planners intend.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow's planners are just interested in the airport extension and how people will get there - I'd expect the DoT and the local Council will be all over them if they really suggest cutting the A4 in the final proposal
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: southern spain
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY
Personally, I cannot see why so much time, money and energy is being spent regarding a third runway at Heathrow, second runway at Gatwick and Boris Island. None of them will ever be built because whoever is in power will not sanction any of them because of the environmental and business backlash, so can we just concentrate all our efforts on the maximum use of the existing five London airports please.
Doubt this is going to happen because anything that causes the M25 to be dug up or covered will take years, cost a fortune and have West London Motorways as congestion hell for 5 years.
Economic impact of 24 hr traffic jams make it a non starter.
Economic impact of 24 hr traffic jams make it a non starter.
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see a runway that is lined up with Windsor Castle getting the go ahead, and nor do I think it should. The planners chose a bad location when they decided on a new London airport to replace Croydon - it was good for transport links but too limited for physical expansion and growth of traffic. This extension is not going to work well - what's the point in increasing the runway capacity by 50% at a curfewed airport if you can expand LGW by 100% with no curfew?
My biggest doubt over LHR is a simple safety one - I don't think it's a great idea having so many arrivals and departures over such a congested area. BA038 was very lucky with its energy profile that it came down in a clear area. Then there are the departures - remember the STN 747 cargo accident? I don't think increasing an airport buried in conurbation is sensible - airports should generally have relatively clear undershoots if possible, and at LGW and STN it is possible.
My biggest doubt over LHR is a simple safety one - I don't think it's a great idea having so many arrivals and departures over such a congested area. BA038 was very lucky with its energy profile that it came down in a clear area. Then there are the departures - remember the STN 747 cargo accident? I don't think increasing an airport buried in conurbation is sensible - airports should generally have relatively clear undershoots if possible, and at LGW and STN it is possible.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Except people seem to prefer flying to LHR, so you need to pay for it's closure in order to do that and still build at LGW or STN. The market doesn't want that, it wants LHR, so either put in appropriate infrastructure or shut it down and add further to out debt to pay for a new grand design "somewhere else". We've been p***ing about putting off this decision for decades. Sort it out please.
Interesting graphic, FE21, thanks for that.
As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.
Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:
a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.
Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:
a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting graphic, FE21, thanks for that.
As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.
Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:
a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
As befits the somewhat dumbed-down approach of the your.heathrow.com website (whose Heathrow?) that it's from, the low-resolution image is rather lacking in detail, in fact it doesn't show any ground transport infrastructure at all other than present-day roads, so we're none the wiser about the proposed M25/M4/A4 layout.
Some interesting changes to the airside layout, though, compared to the previously published NW Option 2 proposal:
a) the T5/T6 complex is now shown as occupying an "island", with taxiways on all 4 sides
b) all 6 runway ends now show significantly displaced landing thresholds, presumably for noise mitigation reasons
Also notice a new access point to the CTA via the south using the cargo tunnel.