HEATHROW
You might find looking at a map helpful.
I suspect that Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Zurich, Geneva, Sydney, Tokyo, etc might beg to differ. All have restrictions of some sort on night movements, as do over 150 more of the world's international airports.
All other major airports don't have limits on time of landings and take offs
If you wind the clock back to 1946 where else near London would you build an airport-
South and North are very hilly and to the east its all docks and mudflats and weather that would make operation of airliners of that era a challenge (ie its always foggy)
So LHR is a good almost the only choice for a big airport because its the only flat real estate for along way . The problem is that they should have aquired the land north of the airport to make provision for R3
South and North are very hilly and to the east its all docks and mudflats and weather that would make operation of airliners of that era a challenge (ie its always foggy)
So LHR is a good almost the only choice for a big airport because its the only flat real estate for along way . The problem is that they should have aquired the land north of the airport to make provision for R3
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking art the AC report there is a suggestion that fees will increase to pay for the runway but isn't that penalising the airlines serving Heathrow now and specifically our own British Airways?
So charges go up THEN they let all comers in.
Willie Walsh won't wear that!
So charges go up THEN they let all comers in.
Willie Walsh won't wear that!
BA has never been in favour of HAL's R3 proposal, at least publicly. The last thing WW wants to see is BA's profits being cannibalized by a combination of higher airport charges and increased competition at the main base. He's already got plenty of LHR slots thank you very much through his acquisitions of BMI and Aer Lingus.
Easyjet probably has similar concerns about the R2 proposals at LGW.
Easyjet probably has similar concerns about the R2 proposals at LGW.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Solihull
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To say Willie Walsh is against expansion at LHR isn't entirely true:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...h-third-runway
BA and IAG are happy for LHR to expand as long as the cost is reasonable - clearly WW thinks Heathrow Hubs plans offer an acceptable cost.
Regardless of what WW thinks, should we let the dominate carrier at LHR dictate the market there. I'm sure many other airlines (both current and potential future users after expansion) would be happy to pay the cost of expansion if it meant increasing their flights there. The CEO of LHR has often stated he has 30 airlines wanting to set up new routes or increase frequencies on current ones.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...h-third-runway
BA and IAG are happy for LHR to expand as long as the cost is reasonable - clearly WW thinks Heathrow Hubs plans offer an acceptable cost.
Regardless of what WW thinks, should we let the dominate carrier at LHR dictate the market there. I'm sure many other airlines (both current and potential future users after expansion) would be happy to pay the cost of expansion if it meant increasing their flights there. The CEO of LHR has often stated he has 30 airlines wanting to set up new routes or increase frequencies on current ones.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last thing WW wants to see is BA's profits being cannibalized by a combination of higher airport charges and increased competition at the main base.
But perhaps he's more worried about potential customers deserting BA for additional longhaul flights from increased competition at LHR ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
probably in the same place - but loading M&S food on the trolley instead of from Lidl
Scheduling, packing and loading food for air ops is a million miles from current M&S food business - they sell in stores. No-one is going to wait while they climb the learning curve so effectivly you use the same "consolidator" but change the supplier - and the money is in consolidation I 'd bet as you take no risk on sell-by-dates, food poisoning etc etc
Scheduling, packing and loading food for air ops is a million miles from current M&S food business - they sell in stores. No-one is going to wait while they climb the learning curve so effectivly you use the same "consolidator" but change the supplier - and the money is in consolidation I 'd bet as you take no risk on sell-by-dates, food poisoning etc etc
Paxing All Over The World
Since M&S already have a country wide operation to supply food every day to main stores, food only stores and petrol stations - adding an airport delivery is easy. As HH says, someone who already knows the system and has all the airside passes and vehicles will be checking/loading and doing the paperwork.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just reported on Sky.
Apparently there is a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style re 3rd runway with the "no compromise from shareholders re Heathrow Hub".
Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon !
plus HAL apparently not having any idea of cost left Grayling scratching head re costs of rest of project.
"How on earth can this not have been considered seems to be cabinet mantra "
plus and this is really incredible ....the emergence and emphasis that all ALL the shareholders are foreign.
How on earthdid they not know this ?
Apparently there is a train of thought that Heathrow has really shot itself in the foot big style re 3rd runway with the "no compromise from shareholders re Heathrow Hub".
Has gone down like a proverbial lead balloon !
plus HAL apparently not having any idea of cost left Grayling scratching head re costs of rest of project.
"How on earth can this not have been considered seems to be cabinet mantra "
plus and this is really incredible ....the emergence and emphasis that all ALL the shareholders are foreign.
How on earthdid they not know this ?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earthdid they not know this ?
HeathrowHub does not own Heathrow Airport, bit of a misleading name. Hence the best option remains the preferred commission view of a new third runway. #dejavu
Heathrow investors snub Grayling call for Hub commitment
This was the double length runway that the commision dismissed. Grayling is scrabbling for "another way", something to fix in two weeks which no one in 70 years has managed?
However, insiders said on Tuesday that Mr Holland-Kaye had been told by his shareholders that acknowledging any support for the rival scheme would be a tactical error so close to an announcement by the Government.
"An extended runway will deliver all the economic benefits and new capacity of a third runway but at lower environmental, social and financial cost."
WW could care less about R3 at LHR, he will be back in Ireland retired before its operational and the world will be a different place. As for the comment about why should the national hub airport bee dominated by a 'national'carrier well look at FRA , CDG and AMS and see how long it takes to work out who the dominant players are.
only in the Uk does the competition mantra suggest the national asset (and it is despite the complex ownership) should be watered down by allowing new entrants and letting dubiously funded 'state' outfits like EK steal huge amounts of business .
In any event the whole issue is about providing a major international hub for the future and LGW isnt a hub and wont be with a second runway-just more bucket and spade and stag weekend EZ traffic . If its chosen London will end up not with two hubs in one place but no hubs at all so for all the flaws and errors and muddles there is only one choice -LHR.
only in the Uk does the competition mantra suggest the national asset (and it is despite the complex ownership) should be watered down by allowing new entrants and letting dubiously funded 'state' outfits like EK steal huge amounts of business .
In any event the whole issue is about providing a major international hub for the future and LGW isnt a hub and wont be with a second runway-just more bucket and spade and stag weekend EZ traffic . If its chosen London will end up not with two hubs in one place but no hubs at all so for all the flaws and errors and muddles there is only one choice -LHR.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK (reluctantly)
Posts: 251
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With whom did it not go down well with?
Politicians - looking for an easy way to avoid a difficult decision?
HeathrowHub developer?
Airlines?
DfT?
CAA?
Residents?
Shareholders?
An extended northern runway IMHO, is a very risky option. The safety case would be a nightmare. Likewise the airspace redesign.
Politicians - looking for an easy way to avoid a difficult decision?
HeathrowHub developer?
Airlines?
DfT?
CAA?
Residents?
Shareholders?
An extended northern runway IMHO, is a very risky option. The safety case would be a nightmare. Likewise the airspace redesign.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Solihull
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heathrow Hub have long said their option can handle the same amount of traffic as Heathrow's own third runway (Press Releases : Heathrow Hub - third article as of 28/9/16).
With regards to safety, operating what is two runways that are in line with each other is of course going to be riskier than operating parallel runways, however some would say loading 400 people onto a 400 tonne aircraft filled up with kerosene is risky.
In terms of aircraft go-arounds, the Heathrow Hub proposal is actually safer than operating from one runway as at Gatwick and many other airports across the UK. The risk I assume Trash 'n' Navs is referring to would be an aircraft over running from the landing runway onto the take off runway. Assuming the aircraft left the landing runway at 100mph and that the takeoff runway starts 650m after the landing runway (what Heathrow Hub have claimed the safety gap would be), it would take approximately 15 seconds to travel the "safety gap". Given how closely monitored LHR's runways currently are - landing aircraft are given clearance to land only when the aircraft in front has cleared the runway, which is often only seconds before the next aircraft touches down - the controllers would certainly notice an aircraft shooting along the landing runway towards the take off runway. Add in the fact that the safety gap may have some system in place to stop an aircraft that enters the safety gap and the chances of the landing aircraft reaching the takeoff runway whilst an aircraft is still there are very small.
As for the airspace redesign, whichever runway option is chosen (assuming any are) the airspace will have to be redesigned regardless. Even without any new runways, given the increasing pressure from communities around airports for respite, an airspace redesign would happen sooner or later.
DfT clearly believes the Heathrow Hub is a safe option otherwise they wouldn't be asking Heathrow Ltd. if they would be prepared to implement it.
With regards to safety, operating what is two runways that are in line with each other is of course going to be riskier than operating parallel runways, however some would say loading 400 people onto a 400 tonne aircraft filled up with kerosene is risky.
In terms of aircraft go-arounds, the Heathrow Hub proposal is actually safer than operating from one runway as at Gatwick and many other airports across the UK. The risk I assume Trash 'n' Navs is referring to would be an aircraft over running from the landing runway onto the take off runway. Assuming the aircraft left the landing runway at 100mph and that the takeoff runway starts 650m after the landing runway (what Heathrow Hub have claimed the safety gap would be), it would take approximately 15 seconds to travel the "safety gap". Given how closely monitored LHR's runways currently are - landing aircraft are given clearance to land only when the aircraft in front has cleared the runway, which is often only seconds before the next aircraft touches down - the controllers would certainly notice an aircraft shooting along the landing runway towards the take off runway. Add in the fact that the safety gap may have some system in place to stop an aircraft that enters the safety gap and the chances of the landing aircraft reaching the takeoff runway whilst an aircraft is still there are very small.
As for the airspace redesign, whichever runway option is chosen (assuming any are) the airspace will have to be redesigned regardless. Even without any new runways, given the increasing pressure from communities around airports for respite, an airspace redesign would happen sooner or later.
DfT clearly believes the Heathrow Hub is a safe option otherwise they wouldn't be asking Heathrow Ltd. if they would be prepared to implement it.
And if there was no such system planned ? (there isn't).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding on airspace is a fundamental realignment of the London TMA, scrapping the holds and moving to a gradual STRAIGHT LINE continuous descent from I think 18k although I'm sure Mr Reid can clarify.
I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !
This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.
The spokesperson suggested
"nobody has asked us about how we implement this yet , nor the impact on other airfields ".
Q. Does this not double the risk of terrorist attack?
Not only are you doubling the traffic over The Capital but increasing the footprint.
Would one cataclysmic event not stop this in its tracks ?
I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !
This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.
The spokesperson suggested
"nobody has asked us about how we implement this yet , nor the impact on other airfields ".
Q. Does this not double the risk of terrorist attack?
Not only are you doubling the traffic over The Capital but increasing the footprint.
Would one cataclysmic event not stop this in its tracks ?
Last edited by Navpi; 28th Sep 2016 at 21:40.
My understanding on airspace is a fundamental realignment of the London TMA, scrapping the holds and moving to a gradual STRAIGHT LINE continuous descent from I think 18k although I'm sure Mr Reid can clarify.
I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !
This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.
I am sure I read this in a NATS DOC !
This would in effect make it parallel approaches straight in from somewhere just south of Southend.
The only document from NATS that I've seen discussing airspace usage with a third LHR runway (prepared by them for the Airports Commission) is this one, which says the precise opposite:
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...--airspace.pdf
It suggests that arrival routings would use an S-shaped "trombone" concept (not all that dissimilar to current practice) and that holds would still be required to cater for situations where short-term demand exceeds runway capacity.