HEATHROW
Depends what you mean by "on site".
If you restrict yourself to within the airport boundary, there are only a handful, but plenty more just outside it, along the Bath Road on the northside for example.
If you restrict yourself to within the airport boundary, there are only a handful, but plenty more just outside it, along the Bath Road on the northside for example.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trash N Navs
...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!
I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.
ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)
It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!
I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.
ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)
It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
Last edited by Bagso; 9th Nov 2015 at 10:20.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
But surely you want BA to be running the majority of that hub !
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...but it's BA that are providing the connectivity to the regional points in the UK !!!!!
I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.
ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)
It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
I don't agree with RW3 I think the ship has sailed BUT if we are going ahead let's not throw out the main basis on which it is being sold.
ie connectivity to the region's and the tsunami of wealth which will wash over us.(..not)
It's BA that provide that connectivity not STAR.
Only BA provide domestic connectivity at present since the demise of BD, but with a third rwy there will be other carriers. U2 plan to use LHR-4 for their future operations which will also include some domestic connectivity.
U2 are unlikely to be the only ones, would expect BD regional and BE to be present at LHR plus some of the holiday-focused companies. Many UK carriers and others would probably want a share of pax in the Thames Valley, the wealthy catchment area around LHR, and to be able to offer them an alternative to travelling accross or around London to other airports.
Plus there are the business travellers to/from the many companies (300+?) that have their headquarters locally, mainly because of proximity to LHR.
Star carriers do offer connectivity at present at LHR as do those of Oneworld and Skyteam, that's the reason the alliances are grouped together by terminal.
At the moment - but it doesn't always have to be that way. With the extra slots R3 will open up, I hope pax get better choice.
Why? What's wrong with competition? Protectionism is not the right way to develop the UK's regional connectivity.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 63
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A record 6.56 million passengers chose to travel through Heathrow in October (+3.9% on October 2014), making it the busiest October to date
Larger, fuller, quieter aircraft continued to drive passenger growth at Heathrow. Seats per aircraft increased 2.1% to 209.3 while load factors increased 2.3% to 77.9% and passengers per aircraft rose 4.5% to 162.9
Within emerging markets, passenger volumes were particularly strong to Mexico which was up 28%, China up 18% and to the Middle East which was up 7% as carriers continue to benefit from new aircraft including A380s
Emerging market cargo volumes at Heathrow, the UK’s largest port by value, increased 3.4% over the past 12 months – notably to Turkey up 26% and Brazil up 7% - underlining the export growth potential an expanded Heathrow with up to 40 new long-haul connections would deliver
Giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye announced a “triple lock” guarantee that will enable Heathrow expansion to be delivered within EU air quality limits
Heathrow is beginning engagement with the freight industry on a cargo blueprint that will double Heathrow’s cargo capacity and boost the UK’s global export competitiveness by enabling faster, more efficient cargo movements
Strong momentum for expansion continued to build amongst business leaders and key politicians. CBI President Paul Drechsler urged “strong political leadership and decisive action” from Government in his address to the business group’s annual conference and 26 Northern Labour MPs wrote an open letter declaring their support and demonstrating that expansion remains a nationwide issue
Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye said:
“Another record month for passenger growth, particularly to emerging economies, shows the urgent need for expansion at Heathrow. We can create the world's best connected and most sustainable hub airport, ensuring Britain remains at the heart of the global economy for future generations. Let's build it.”
Larger, fuller, quieter aircraft continued to drive passenger growth at Heathrow. Seats per aircraft increased 2.1% to 209.3 while load factors increased 2.3% to 77.9% and passengers per aircraft rose 4.5% to 162.9
Within emerging markets, passenger volumes were particularly strong to Mexico which was up 28%, China up 18% and to the Middle East which was up 7% as carriers continue to benefit from new aircraft including A380s
Emerging market cargo volumes at Heathrow, the UK’s largest port by value, increased 3.4% over the past 12 months – notably to Turkey up 26% and Brazil up 7% - underlining the export growth potential an expanded Heathrow with up to 40 new long-haul connections would deliver
Giving evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Chief Executive John Holland-Kaye announced a “triple lock” guarantee that will enable Heathrow expansion to be delivered within EU air quality limits
Heathrow is beginning engagement with the freight industry on a cargo blueprint that will double Heathrow’s cargo capacity and boost the UK’s global export competitiveness by enabling faster, more efficient cargo movements
Strong momentum for expansion continued to build amongst business leaders and key politicians. CBI President Paul Drechsler urged “strong political leadership and decisive action” from Government in his address to the business group’s annual conference and 26 Northern Labour MPs wrote an open letter declaring their support and demonstrating that expansion remains a nationwide issue
Heathrow CEO John Holland-Kaye said:
“Another record month for passenger growth, particularly to emerging economies, shows the urgent need for expansion at Heathrow. We can create the world's best connected and most sustainable hub airport, ensuring Britain remains at the heart of the global economy for future generations. Let's build it.”
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hither and Thither
Posts: 575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article in the Evening Standard today, in my opinion it accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of ordinary Londoner's and the reasons why expanding LHR with a 3rd runway would be wrong.
Simon Jenkins: Don?t buy the idea that Heathrow expansion is ?good for the nation? | Comment | London Evening Standard
Simon Jenkins: Don?t buy the idea that Heathrow expansion is ?good for the nation? | Comment | London Evening Standard
Paxing All Over The World
Mr Jenkins is getting old and an old fashioned 'rant' is no substitute for the reasoned journalism he used to write. Setting that aside, he does himself no favours by saying,
As I have lived under the paths of LHR (West and now North) for some 30 years, I can tell him that the A380 is a lot quieter than a 707 and even some of the smaller Airbus machines. Also, he knows that no one ever said 'silent' but 'quieter' - which has happened.
At least he is correct:
But fails to point out that physical space allowed those four places to have more options. But, having then railed about pollution, he fails to talk about the current problem of pollution caused by the long taxi waits and the long holding patterns for landing.
Lastly, I think a lot of Londoners just don't care. There are far more pressing problems and since we have four airports (and even SEN taking some Essex traffic) to choose from, they don't see the problem one way or the other.
Endless pledges from the airlines of new, clean and silent planes are never delivered.
At least he is correct:
New York, Paris, Moscow and Hong Kong don’t do it. Heathrow was only allowed to grow because gutless ministers dared not stand up to the airlines lobby.
Lastly, I think a lot of Londoners just don't care. There are far more pressing problems and since we have four airports (and even SEN taking some Essex traffic) to choose from, they don't see the problem one way or the other.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you PAXboy, having lived under the north, west and now southerly tracks. For those currently under flight paths, things will improve overnight if/when R3 opens as more or less the same traffic will be distributed over 3 areas and not 2. There will not suddenly be a 50pc increase in demand.
By the time the runway fills up, at the current rate of progress, aircraft will be virtually silent. People are judging this by historic standards and the airport PR machine is very poor in this respect. An A380 rotated next to my car the other night and in no way could the noise be considered at nuisance value. Similarly a 787 on final approach is almost literally silent any more than a couple of hundred yards away. Any doubters can hear for themselves in any of the local pub car parks.
By the time the runway fills up, at the current rate of progress, aircraft will be virtually silent. People are judging this by historic standards and the airport PR machine is very poor in this respect. An A380 rotated next to my car the other night and in no way could the noise be considered at nuisance value. Similarly a 787 on final approach is almost literally silent any more than a couple of hundred yards away. Any doubters can hear for themselves in any of the local pub car parks.
While movements will be shared across three runways rather than two, only communities under the current 27R flightpath are likely to notice that there are, initially, longer gaps between arrivals until traffic increases to fill the additional runway capacity.
While those under the 27L approach will also get fewer movements, initially, those movements will be spread over 75% of the day, cutting alternation respite from the current 50% to 25%. The same will apply to communities under the new northern runway arrival flightpath.
Needless to say, opposition to that prospect is one of central planks of the current anti-R3 campaign.
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still find it quite funny that Heathrow actually has alot more capacity they are just not allowed to use it! Takeoffs and landings should be allowed simultaneously from both runways, adding alot more capacity and cutting the cost by alot! Heathrow has been there long enough for the originally concerned residents to have moved or died. Anyone one who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences.
http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues/252...-heathrow.html
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Age: 51
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12.5% is modest ? It's fairly substantial considering no physical expansion required to gain it ! Must read that link and read why that should not be implemented like yesterday...
Last edited by eggc; 11th Nov 2015 at 23:37.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good article in the Evening Standard today, in my opinion it accurately reflects the opinion of the majority of ordinary Londoner's and the reasons why expanding LHR with a 3rd runway would be wrong.
LHR expansion has never been an election issue and no seats have changed hands because of it, and because of this, and no independent specifically anti-LHR expansion candidate has ever stood for election.
As I have lived under the paths of LHR (West and now North) for some 30 years, I can tell him that the A380 is a lot quieter than a 707 and even some of the smaller Airbus machines. Also, he knows that no one ever said 'silent' but 'quieter' - which has happened.
With reference to New York, Paris and Hong Kong, Jenkins is wrong again. New York has three airports all nearer the city than LHR is to London, the same applies to Paris's two airports, and all those airports are located well within those cities' conurbations and not in open countryside. In the case of Hong Kong, the airport had to be relocated for obvious physical reasons and that airport, too, is within the Hong Kong conurbation.
But fails to point out that physical space allowed those four places to have more options. But, having then railed about pollution, he fails to talk about the current problem of pollution caused by the long taxi waits and the long holding patterns for landing.
Of course the anti-expansion lobby are happy with the status quo and the pollution caused by the all-day congestion at LHR which means 20 minute queues to takeoff and 20 minutes of circling before landing. They have no answers.
All in all, a pretty rubbish article.
It's not quite as simple as that.
While movements will be shared across three runways rather than two, only communities under the current 27R flightpath are likely to notice that there are, initially, longer gaps between arrivals until traffic increases to fill the additional runway capacity.
While those under the 27L approach will also get fewer movements, initially, those movements will be spread over 75% of the day, cutting alternation respite from the current 50% to 25%. The same will apply to communities under the new northern runway arrival flightpath.
Needless to say, opposition to that prospect is one of central planks of the current anti-R3 campaign.
While movements will be shared across three runways rather than two, only communities under the current 27R flightpath are likely to notice that there are, initially, longer gaps between arrivals until traffic increases to fill the additional runway capacity.
While those under the 27L approach will also get fewer movements, initially, those movements will be spread over 75% of the day, cutting alternation respite from the current 50% to 25%. The same will apply to communities under the new northern runway arrival flightpath.
Needless to say, opposition to that prospect is one of central planks of the current anti-R3 campaign.
For the present levels of respite to be maintained with expansion, four rwys would be necessary.
I still find it quite funny that Heathrow actually has alot more capacity they are just not allowed to use it! Takeoffs and landings should be allowed simultaneously from both runways, adding alot more capacity and cutting the cost by alot! Heathrow has been there long enough for the originally concerned residents to have moved or died. Anyone one who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences.
Heathrow management are against permanent mixed mode and that's probably the reason why.
Of course "anyone who moved in after should have been aware of the consequences" but those consequences were, and are, rwy alternation.
Join Date: May 2015
Location: London
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR expansion has never been an election issue and no seats have changed hands because of it, and because of this, and no independent specifically anti-LHR expansion candidate has ever stood for election.
The proposed alternation scheme would have four, rather than three, phases.
The reason is that the centre runway (the current northern one) can't be used in mixed mode for ATC reasons, so it would continue to operate in segregated mode with landings 50% of the time and takeoffs the other 50% (as at present).
The proposed new northern runway and the current southern one would operate in mixed mode 50% of the time, segregated arrivals-only mode 25% of the time and departures-only mode the remaining 25%.
So the Arrivals/Mixed-mode/Departures pattern would look like
09L/27R: M D A M
09C/27C: D A D A
09R/27L: A M M D
I don't recall seeing any statement about how frequently the runway roles would switch, it might well be daily but other options including the current 3pm changeover would obviously be feasible as well.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect those who have swallowed the BackHeathrow line have done so based on the simple expansion of the robust model that operates "as at today" with BA a "UK" airline continuing to shuttle pax and provide service to various UK domestic points !
Very nice and all very fluffy but not quite the reality of what may happen 10 years down the line !!!!!!!
I cannot for the life of me think that any of these groups are offering support for RW3 based on the wholesale change being promoted here.
Or the premise of BA pulling GLA, EDI, LBA, etc only to be replaced by the likes of BMI regional Flybe or EZY...
They won't be dancing in the streets of Auchtermuchty based on that notion !
AND using the EZY model as a positive for expansion from T4 really does beggar belief. Yes 100% great for the consumer flying say Scotland to London ...and back ! Point to point all housed in one terminal but totally useless for domestic / long haul connectivity which is after all the primary basis on which this is being sold!
EZY will cherry pick prime routes "supposedly" some of these will almost crucially be those which make the whole "UK" hub concept viable, on the other hand it is of course possible they may even create a mini hub themselves "Inverness to Paris, is an example but that isn't Edinburgh to Melbourne via LHR on BA is it and that is after all what BackHeathrow are pumping out as the lead headline!
Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !
And what of cost?
Heathrow will be sinking under the weight of new debt so will pass that on, they are already talking about slashing wages by 30% and renogotiating contracts, are we seriously suggesting an airline like FlyBe who have recently pulled out of Gatwick and who have witnessed the demise of Virgin would contemplate taking on BA routes?
I mean really ?
Very nice and all very fluffy but not quite the reality of what may happen 10 years down the line !!!!!!!
I cannot for the life of me think that any of these groups are offering support for RW3 based on the wholesale change being promoted here.
Or the premise of BA pulling GLA, EDI, LBA, etc only to be replaced by the likes of BMI regional Flybe or EZY...
They won't be dancing in the streets of Auchtermuchty based on that notion !
AND using the EZY model as a positive for expansion from T4 really does beggar belief. Yes 100% great for the consumer flying say Scotland to London ...and back ! Point to point all housed in one terminal but totally useless for domestic / long haul connectivity which is after all the primary basis on which this is being sold!
EZY will cherry pick prime routes "supposedly" some of these will almost crucially be those which make the whole "UK" hub concept viable, on the other hand it is of course possible they may even create a mini hub themselves "Inverness to Paris, is an example but that isn't Edinburgh to Melbourne via LHR on BA is it and that is after all what BackHeathrow are pumping out as the lead headline!
Providing a new runway just for routes such as JFK - Prague pax isn't really helping the UK !
And what of cost?
Heathrow will be sinking under the weight of new debt so will pass that on, they are already talking about slashing wages by 30% and renogotiating contracts, are we seriously suggesting an airline like FlyBe who have recently pulled out of Gatwick and who have witnessed the demise of Virgin would contemplate taking on BA routes?
I mean really ?
Last edited by Bagso; 13th Nov 2015 at 06:43.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I'm aware, HAL's submission only outlined the four modes, and did not state anything about what proportion they would operate in each mode, nor how often they rotate modes.
Indeed, the submission states:
Which is not too far from what Fdf was told. Someone has just conflated that to mean three modes, operated equally.
Indeed, the submission states:
By rotating these three uses around
the three runways
the three runways
nor how often they rotate modes
Personally, I think they should rotate modes every hour to keep the controllers on their toes.
