HEATHROW

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Originally Posted by HOODED

Despite being from the North I would like to see R3 at LHR. Never flown from MAN but have from LBA LTN LGW LHR BHX STN. For longer flights like a lot from Yorkshire I prefer AMS or even CDG to trogging across to MAN. Whilst LBA now has BA to LHR I haven't used it due to flight timings. This is precisely what R3 could fix. There are 2 early flights ex LBA to AMS a Jet 2 and a KLM this is where most folks go for Long Haul connections and LBA isn't alone. LHR as a proper hub could easily mop up most of these pax if the connections from all the regions were available. Bring on R3 and let's fly the flag.

With the best will in the world, that is simply no justification for the level of taxpayer subsidy for an airport that is a private company.

That money (however much it is it is clearly vast) could better serve UK plc elsewhere.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Except that £2.2bn-£18bn spread across the regions won't generate £100bn of GDP growth let alone the scale indicated by the Commission.

(I'm quoting the low & high claims as no-one seems prepared to accept the independent view of £5.5bn suggested by the AC)

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Fixed it for you. When LHR can get over the impediment below they have a chance of they are willing to fund it. As you say they have been trying for 30 years without sucess. I doubt your assertions will change that fact.


"Except that £2.2bn-£18bn spent at Heathrow hasn't a chance of generating anything close £100bn of GDP growth, but is likely to redistribute GDP to the South East at the taxpayers expense."

[vctenderness]

Listened to a debate on radio this morning re Heathrow. One bright spark was complaining at how low aircraft were when landing! I kid you not!

[Walnut]

Just heard PMQs 11/5 where the Prime Minister was asked by I think a Labour MP when did he think he would be able to give the go ahead for the expansion of the airport.
He gave no date but said one thing that needs to be completed is the air quality assessment. A very brief answer No mention of finance
Further I have just heard the question was prompted by HAL promising to start Night flights 1hr later at 0530

[PAXboy]

And there is the real shortcoming of such phone ins. The caller needs to be asked:

• Where are you standing when making this observation?
• If at your own house - did you know the airport was there when you rented/bought?
• How often do you use the airport?
• Do you know how many jobs relay on the airport?
• Are you aware of how the politicians have failed the UK airports in the last 30 years?

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

BBC News - Heathrow offers to curb night flights as it fights to build third runway

So, afew titbits on night-flying and nice words about limiting air pollution. No offer to put up more of the funding!

[T250]

Instead of restricting night flights more, why not do the opposite!

Make LHR 24/7 airport like any other leading major hubs, DXB for example.

That's who we're aiming to compete against as a great 'hub' aren't we.

And as for the noise/environmental concerns, well... you're happy to intensify them with R3 but to spread them out into a 24 hour operation that's a big no no? Strange logic!

Why can't we maximise what we have now. In reality you have 2 under-utilised runways at LHR! In this 24/7 globalised world of which aviation and so called 'hubs' are crucial, I think the immediate concern should be the incredibly restrictive operating hours not the actual infrastructure currently present.

[Walnut]

The 0530LT landing restriction could only be got round by persuading Far East airports to allow T/Os after midnight, or maybe allowing these flights to route to LGW where the restrictions are less onerous

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Instead of restricting night flights more, why not do the opposite!

Make LHR 24/7 airport like any other leading major hubs, DXB for example.

I actually suggested exactly this directly to Sir Howard Davies during one of the AC consultation meetings. I reminded him that the noise footprints generated by contemporary airliners were tiny compared with those of their 1960's/1970's counterparts for which the night-flying restrictions were implemented. Technology has significantly reduced the decibels and increased the climb rates since then. Yet the rules still afford no recognition to these advances and the investment operators have made in re-equipping fleets with less-intrusive aircraft types. I pointed out that even if full night-flying could not be approved, relaxation of rules for compliant types would yield many additional slots which could be allocated to priority long-haul routes. And minimal new investment at LHR would be required to achieve this.

I also advised him that public perceptions of aircraft noise in the vicinity of 24/7 commercial airports is way overblown and based upon memories of aircraft types withdrawn long ago. Modern airliners don't ruin your sleep. And that is not just an expedient claim on my part. Few are better located than me to comment on such matters! ;-)

At the time, SHD replied that this was an interesting proposal which nobody had suggested to him before. He would take it away and discuss it with his team. And when the report was eventually published ... it proposed a reduction in night-flying. So much for common sense!

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Shed

One of the terms of reference to the airport commission was to maintain the UKs position as Europes most important aviation hub.

The only viable means of delivering this is via LHR.

Against this background it is obvious what conclusion would be formed by the airports commission - Heathrow expansion. The solution of night flying would not meet this outcome and would be even more politically toxic than the third runway is!

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

I pointed out that even if full night-flying could not be approved, relaxation of rules for compliant types would yield many additional slots which could be allocated to priority long-haul routes.

That's happens anyway.

Four A380 landings consume the same noise quota as a single arriving 747-400. Similarly a 777-300ER uses 4 times as many quota points as a 787. And the GTF-powered A320neo isn't subject to any night noise restrictions at all.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

And the GTF-powered A320neo isn't subject to any night noise restrictions at all.

So just to be clear ... are you saying that HAL would allow these to operate unrestricted throughout the night at LHR? Surely not?

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Shed-on-a-Pole

So just to be clear ... are you saying that HAL would allow these to operate unrestricted throughout the night at LHR? Surely not?

Well it's a bit academic, as we're talking mostly about long-haul routes, and about what HAL could do, not necessarily what they would do.

But yes, the current LHR/LGW/STN night restrictions (which are the Government's, not HAL's) exempt the P&W powered A320neo (not sure about the CFM-powered one) from counting against either the movements limit or the night noise quota.

[Trinity 09L]

The letter from J Holland- Kaye & quotes from press release today.

"delivering up to £211 bn in economic benefit and 180,000 jobs by approving a third runway"

"Measures include support for an early introduction of ban on scheduled flight for six and half hours every night after expansion planning consent received and the necessary airspace is modernised"

"to ensure that as many as possible of the 40,000 new jobs at the airport go to those living nearby"

and finally to get there they will get the following support

"our support for local cycling will mean that there will be no more airport related traffic on the roads after the new runway opens than today"

[DaveReidUK]

The video accompanying the press release also contains the following statement from JH-K:

"We will commit to providing times when local residents have respite from all noise"

which appears to imply a cessation of respite-busting, out-of-alternation landings (TEAM) on whichever runway isn't designated for arrivals in the alternation schedule.

I'm surprised more noise (npi) isn't being made about that as it's currently one of the most common complaints from local residents.

[Trinity 09L]

In his press release no mention is made of departures on 09L, when all arrivals will be on 09R waking more residents who have had noise respite.
When the residents to the North East of LHR hear these aircraft off 09L it will change their opinion.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

"delivering up to £211 bn in economic benefit and 180,000 jobs by approving a third runway"

"our support for local cycling will mean that there will be no more airport related traffic on the roads after the new runway opens than today"

A nomination for the British Comedy Awards is in order! Although in fairness those two accommodating little words up to render the first statement correct in literal terms.

[DaveReidUK]

Originally Posted by Trinity 09L

In his press release no mention is made of departures on 09L, when all arrivals will be on 09R waking more residents who have had noise respite.
When the residents to the North East of LHR hear these aircraft off 09L it will change their opinion.

There have never been any guarantees of respite under the departure flightpath, the alternation schedule applies to arrivals only.

On the subject of using 09L for easterly departures, it all seems to have gone quiet lately (so to speak). Does anyone know the current status of the battle between HAL and LB Hillingdon re planning permission for the changes to allow easterly alternation?

[Bagso]

Whilst I'm no fan of Heathrow but trying to remain impartial I would have thought limiting arrivals from Asia to a later time would be commercially quite toxic?

Incidentally we did have Mrs Marple from the tree huggers given uneccessary airtime on 5 live this morning.

"We have relatIves in Sheffield and they have to travel down to Heathrow because Manchester has no US flights
..."

Really shows stupidity of some folk !