HEATHROW
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA are launching a new 4 x weekly service from LHR too SCL on 3rd January 2017
BA251 LHR 22:00 SCL 09:40+1 789 x146
BA250 SCL 18:45 LHR 12:05+1 789 x257
Once it begin this will be BA's longest non stop flight, with westbound flights scheduled for 14hrs 40min and eastbound 14hrs 20mins
BA251 LHR 22:00 SCL 09:40+1 789 x146
BA250 SCL 18:45 LHR 12:05+1 789 x257
Once it begin this will be BA's longest non stop flight, with westbound flights scheduled for 14hrs 40min and eastbound 14hrs 20mins
Particularly good as LA doesn't do SCL-LHR, this will eliminate changing at MAD (or GRU/EZE).
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises - BBC News
Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises
By Richard Westcott BBC Transport correspondent
It's not surprising that Heathrow Airport has some trust issues with its neighbours. In the fiery battle to build a brand new fifth terminal (T5) in the 1990s, the man who used to run Heathrow's parent company made a series of promises to ease concerns.
The biggest was a commitment to permanently rule out a third runway.
It might be 17 years since that neighbourly letter was sent out, but the memory still smarts for local opponents. That's why many people have told me they simply don't believe the new package of promises unveiled last week by Heathrow's current boss, John Holland-Kaye. Some look remarkably similar to the 1999 list, including pledges to limit noise, night flights, new runways and a vow to get more than half of passengers arriving on public transport.
The new boss has learnt from his predecessor's errors. Just look at last week's talk about laying down new asphalt: Heathrow will "accept a commitment from government ruling out any fourth runway". In other words, we're not going to pretend we'll never want it. But if the government blocks it we won't make a fuss.
The Heathrow CEO also recently said sorry for abandoning the pledge on a third runway, "I am shocked by that commitment. It should never have been made. And it could never be kept... It has hung over the relationship with local communities, and has led to a deficit of trust that can only be repaired by demonstrating we are a different company from the past," he said.
But the letter still comes up in conversation when I talk to people. Trust is hard won, easily squandered.
Promises
Did they keep any of the old promises?
I dug out the old letter from 1999. It was written at the end of the public inquiry into T5, a couple of years before the final approval came through. It's full of commitments. So how did they do?
Promise 1: "An additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever." Promise broken.
Promise 2: "A legal freeze on the night flight quota... at today's (1999) levels."
This one isn't straightforward, so bear with me. The number of actual planes flying overhead between 11:30pm and 6am has stayed roughly the same since 1999. It averages around 16 a night.
In fact, in 1999, it was 5,666 airliners in total. Last year it was 5,498. (That doesn't include exemptions for bad weather and emergencies). But, that's not the only way things are measured. They also use a points system called the quota count. It's a formula that combines the number of aircraft with the type used. Because some are noisier than others. The upper limit is set by the government. In 1999, Heathrow was allowed 11,140 noise points. They only used 9,312. In 2015 they were allowed 9,180 points. They only used 5,322. (Those figures come from Heathrow).
So, the number of aircraft is the same, but they have cut right down on their government allocated "noise budget", because the planes are quieter. Promise kept.
Protesters have spent years fighting against Heathrow expansion Heathrow's current, third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am. That's the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am. So, you'd still get 16 early flights, they'd just all arrive in the half-hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes.
Promise 3: "We have proposed that if T5 is allowed there should be a legally-binding cap on noise levels at 1994 levels."
Noise is complex. Different things irritate different people. For some it's peak noise. For others it's about getting a regular break. The government currently says that 57 decibels (dB) is the point at which people start getting annoyed. Ministers set a noise contour, based on 57dB on a summer's day between 7am and 11pm. It's a maximum area where the airport can be noisy.
Heathrow's noise contour is limited to 145 sq km. The latest Civil Aviation Authority figures show the actual, current 57dB contour is 104.9 sq km. The retirement of Concorde in 2004 had a significant impact, cutting the noise envelope down from 126.9 sq km to 117.9 sq km. But far more significant was the global phasing out of noisier, Chapter 2 aircraft, which began in 2002, coupled with the continued introduction of quieter planes. Promise kept.
Promise 4: "We promise to take steps to reduce the impact of cars travelling to the airport by setting a long-term vision of 50% of passengers using public transport to Heathrow." It doesn't say how long "long-term" is, but 17 years on, the current level is just 40%. Promise broken.
Interestingly, the current proposal for a third runway includes a claim that "over 55% of passengers" will arrive on public transport. To be clear, there are many, many people who live near Heathrow who want to see it expand. They rely on the airport for jobs. They've got used to the noise. They knew it was noisy when they moved there.
I spent an hour or so in Hounslow market the other day, chatting to people. Views were split right down the middle, half for and half against. But if the government does pick Heathrow rather than Gatwick when it finally decides where to build a new runway, it faces a torrid time trying to get the plans through. Part of the reason for that is concern that promises on growth and noise will simply be broken.
Heathrow Airport communities wary of more promises
By Richard Westcott BBC Transport correspondent
- 18 May 2016
It's not surprising that Heathrow Airport has some trust issues with its neighbours. In the fiery battle to build a brand new fifth terminal (T5) in the 1990s, the man who used to run Heathrow's parent company made a series of promises to ease concerns.
The biggest was a commitment to permanently rule out a third runway.
It might be 17 years since that neighbourly letter was sent out, but the memory still smarts for local opponents. That's why many people have told me they simply don't believe the new package of promises unveiled last week by Heathrow's current boss, John Holland-Kaye. Some look remarkably similar to the 1999 list, including pledges to limit noise, night flights, new runways and a vow to get more than half of passengers arriving on public transport.
The new boss has learnt from his predecessor's errors. Just look at last week's talk about laying down new asphalt: Heathrow will "accept a commitment from government ruling out any fourth runway". In other words, we're not going to pretend we'll never want it. But if the government blocks it we won't make a fuss.
The Heathrow CEO also recently said sorry for abandoning the pledge on a third runway, "I am shocked by that commitment. It should never have been made. And it could never be kept... It has hung over the relationship with local communities, and has led to a deficit of trust that can only be repaired by demonstrating we are a different company from the past," he said.
But the letter still comes up in conversation when I talk to people. Trust is hard won, easily squandered.
Promises
Did they keep any of the old promises?
I dug out the old letter from 1999. It was written at the end of the public inquiry into T5, a couple of years before the final approval came through. It's full of commitments. So how did they do?
Promise 1: "An additional Heathrow runway should be ruled out forever." Promise broken.
Promise 2: "A legal freeze on the night flight quota... at today's (1999) levels."
This one isn't straightforward, so bear with me. The number of actual planes flying overhead between 11:30pm and 6am has stayed roughly the same since 1999. It averages around 16 a night.
In fact, in 1999, it was 5,666 airliners in total. Last year it was 5,498. (That doesn't include exemptions for bad weather and emergencies). But, that's not the only way things are measured. They also use a points system called the quota count. It's a formula that combines the number of aircraft with the type used. Because some are noisier than others. The upper limit is set by the government. In 1999, Heathrow was allowed 11,140 noise points. They only used 9,312. In 2015 they were allowed 9,180 points. They only used 5,322. (Those figures come from Heathrow).
So, the number of aircraft is the same, but they have cut right down on their government allocated "noise budget", because the planes are quieter. Promise kept.
Protesters have spent years fighting against Heathrow expansion Heathrow's current, third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am. That's the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am. So, you'd still get 16 early flights, they'd just all arrive in the half-hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes.
Promise 3: "We have proposed that if T5 is allowed there should be a legally-binding cap on noise levels at 1994 levels."
Noise is complex. Different things irritate different people. For some it's peak noise. For others it's about getting a regular break. The government currently says that 57 decibels (dB) is the point at which people start getting annoyed. Ministers set a noise contour, based on 57dB on a summer's day between 7am and 11pm. It's a maximum area where the airport can be noisy.
Heathrow's noise contour is limited to 145 sq km. The latest Civil Aviation Authority figures show the actual, current 57dB contour is 104.9 sq km. The retirement of Concorde in 2004 had a significant impact, cutting the noise envelope down from 126.9 sq km to 117.9 sq km. But far more significant was the global phasing out of noisier, Chapter 2 aircraft, which began in 2002, coupled with the continued introduction of quieter planes. Promise kept.
Promise 4: "We promise to take steps to reduce the impact of cars travelling to the airport by setting a long-term vision of 50% of passengers using public transport to Heathrow." It doesn't say how long "long-term" is, but 17 years on, the current level is just 40%. Promise broken.
Interestingly, the current proposal for a third runway includes a claim that "over 55% of passengers" will arrive on public transport. To be clear, there are many, many people who live near Heathrow who want to see it expand. They rely on the airport for jobs. They've got used to the noise. They knew it was noisy when they moved there.
I spent an hour or so in Hounslow market the other day, chatting to people. Views were split right down the middle, half for and half against. But if the government does pick Heathrow rather than Gatwick when it finally decides where to build a new runway, it faces a torrid time trying to get the plans through. Part of the reason for that is concern that promises on growth and noise will simply be broken.
Protesters have spent years fighting against Heathrow expansion Heathrow's current, third runway proposal would stop flights between 11pm and 5:30am. That's the biggest change for decades. In reality, it would mean the six flights that now touch down between 4:30am and 5:30am would be pushed a little later, to arrive between 5:30am and 6am. So, you'd still get 16 early flights, they'd just all arrive in the half-hour before 6am, give or take a few minutes.
It's true that in summer there are only half-a-dozen flights scheduled up to 5:30am (out of the 14 or so pre-06:00 arrivals). But it's a completely different story in winter, with 14 out of the 18 night quota flights being scheduled to arrive between 4:30am and 5:30am (because our clocks go back, but they don't in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, etc).
You can't land 18 heavies in 30 minutes during night-time single-runway operations, and if the plan is to start TEAM (dual-runway approaches) from 5:30am, that will go down like a lead balloon among local communities, presumably why they are keeping very quiet about it.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Parliament is bound by the previous one, no business is bound by previous policy unless it's legally binding. LCY was built for a few DHC7s per day and would never see jets.....
The original NW runway plans published showed the A4 Colnbrook bypass curving south to a new roundabout just east of Poyle, from where it would continue east in a tunnel on more-or-less its original course past the northside to Hounslow and points beyond.
The revised ("optimised") NW layout, with the runway moved further southwest, doesn't leave room for the bypass. It still shows the roundabout, and the A4 east from that point under the taxiways, but the implication is that Poyle and Colnbrook are no longer bypassed but have the A4 running through them, as they had before the bypass was built in 1929.
At recent meeting I attended in the presence of JHK, an authorative person explained that vehicles carrying hazchem cannot use tunnels, HAL maybe did not understand this issue.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No Parliament is bound by the previous one, no business is bound by previous policy unless it's legally binding."
Which is why the protestors trust nobody and will have their day (or years) in court...............
Watch out - if Dave thinks ditching LHR R3 will help win him the referendum it'll be dead in hours..................
Which is why the protestors trust nobody and will have their day (or years) in court...............
Watch out - if Dave thinks ditching LHR R3 will help win him the referendum it'll be dead in hours..................
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely correct. EU ADR applies on public roads and road tunnels and there's a lot of hazchem that can use tunnels under certain conditions or with certain controls in place. After all, they get hazchem through the Dartmouth Tunnel.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think for muost public transport tunnels it normally involves an escort fore and aft and closing the tunnel to other traffic - if the tunnel is seperate from the one in the opposite direction than only one tunnel is affected
You occasionaly see hazardous cargoes parked up near the entrance to major road tunnels (eg Liverpool, Tyne etc) with an escort waiting for an opportune time to go through
Oddly I've never seen one at the Hindhead Tunnel on the A3 so maybe they just sail straight through.......
You occasionaly see hazardous cargoes parked up near the entrance to major road tunnels (eg Liverpool, Tyne etc) with an escort waiting for an opportune time to go through
Oddly I've never seen one at the Hindhead Tunnel on the A3 so maybe they just sail straight through.......
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirportWatch | Sunday Times obtains details of £10.4 million bonus scheme, in stages, for Heathrow execs if they get 3rd runway
Note: I'm no friend of airport watch but could not get the full article off the Sunday Times due the pay wall.
This is gathering mileage having been on a BBC bulletin last week then swiftly dropped.
It's clearly being dressed up as something murky, I'm not sure I agree or disagree what do others think ?
As long as the trail doesn't go back to Davies or any members of the Commission I'm not sure it has merit.
Note: I'm no friend of airport watch but could not get the full article off the Sunday Times due the pay wall.
This is gathering mileage having been on a BBC bulletin last week then swiftly dropped.
It's clearly being dressed up as something murky, I'm not sure I agree or disagree what do others think ?
As long as the trail doesn't go back to Davies or any members of the Commission I'm not sure it has merit.
The issue isn't so much that this scheme exists, since (as you've noted) it's normal for a company to incentivise its senior people to meet key objectives. The problem is that HAL denied only two months ago that any such scheme was in operation at Heathrow. What may be seen as a lack of transparency in some quarters doesn't exactly lend confidence to any other undertakings or statements they give.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airport technology signals end of delays in high winds
Reported in The Times:
Source: Airport technology signals end of delays in high winds | | The Times & The Sunday Times
More aircraft will be able to land in strong headwinds — the biggest single cause of late arrivals — after a successful test of the system at Heathrow. An analysis showed that delays caused by wind were cut by 60 per cent at the west London hub in the first 12 months that the technology was in operation.
The “time-based separation” system will be introduced at Gatwick and Manchester
The “time-based separation” system will be introduced at Gatwick and Manchester
Nice presentation on TBS at LHR here:
Clock Watching | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazine
Heathrow typically loses around 8 landings per hour in strong headwind conditions with traditional distance-based separation. The TBS trial was expected to recover around 5 of those 8 lost slots, so the reported 60% cut in delays looks to be bang on the nail.
Clock Watching | Air Traffic Management | Air Traffic Management - ATM and CMS Industry online, the latest air traffic control industry, CAA, ANSP, SESAR and NEXTGEN news, events, supplier directory and magazine
Heathrow typically loses around 8 landings per hour in strong headwind conditions with traditional distance-based separation. The TBS trial was expected to recover around 5 of those 8 lost slots, so the reported 60% cut in delays looks to be bang on the nail.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: MCT
Posts: 895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not entirely correct. EU ADR applies on public roads and road tunnels and there's a lot of hazchem that can use tunnels under certain conditions or with certain controls in place. After all, they get hazchem through the Dartmouth Tunnel.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Should there not be a moratorium where major projects which might be subject to public spending don't get free adverting at peak times.
A single documentary is one thing, a second three parter just before a decision on RW3 begins to look like none to subtle big brother propaganda.
At least if they delay the decision it will be good for a repeat in 2 years time?
....It might even coincide with the final final final decision.
A single documentary is one thing, a second three parter just before a decision on RW3 begins to look like none to subtle big brother propaganda.
At least if they delay the decision it will be good for a repeat in 2 years time?
....It might even coincide with the final final final decision.