HEATHROW
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For anyone who has knowledge about GA and the private aircraft at LHR. How often do you see a light twin?
I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit.
I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit.
For anyone who has knowledge about GA and the private aircraft at LHR. How often do you see a light twin?
I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit
I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Age: 32
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, the only light twin prop to have visited recently was a Navajo Chieftain early last Saturday (31/3), but that was gone by 07:30 local so it doesn't tie up with your 09:00 departure.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Closing them down to open up airspace seems an odd proposition when there are other options that would free up airspace and (existing) airfield capacity - doing away with alternation at LHR and allowing flex departure tracks would solve the short term capacity constraints.
The political quotient will always get in the way though because the Westminster Crew seek election/re-election but if the UK is to prosper, it needs strong political leadership with the long-term vision to lay out the roadmap to growth."
Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off, but it will increase airfield capacity, by about 12%(?).
However, it will end the daily half-day of quiet for residents under the flightpath and, politically, that may be fraught with difficulty. On the other hand, threatening mixed mode could be a way of neutralising opposition to LHR expansion.
Frankly this is not too far from the truth, for if there is no LHR expansion, and soon, it will become increasingly difficult to resist pressure for mixed mode operations (irrespective of the increase in congestion).
The political quotient will always get in the way though because the Westminster Crew seek election/re-election but if the UK is to prosper, it needs strong political leadership with the long-term vision to lay out the roadmap to growth."
Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off, but it will increase airfield capacity, by about 12%(?).
However, it will end the daily half-day of quiet for residents under the flightpath and, politically, that may be fraught with difficulty. On the other hand, threatening mixed mode could be a way of neutralising opposition to LHR expansion.
Frankly this is not too far from the truth, for if there is no LHR expansion, and soon, it will become increasingly difficult to resist pressure for mixed mode operations (irrespective of the increase in congestion).
Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off.....
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off, but it will increase airfield capacity, by about 12%(?).
Heathrow on paper is full all the time but since nothing really runs to schedule all the time in reality, there are some pain points during the day, particularly with regard to departing heavies one after the other after the other which gets worse when everything is heading on the same SIDs.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there are some pain points during the day, particularly with regard to
departing heavies one after the other after the other
Theoretically, mixed mode does cut down holding, both on the ground and in the air, providing the schedule is the same; both the departure and arrival rates are in excess of the schedule. So, if you keep running mixed mode for a period of time, you'll eventually run out of aeroplanes and they'll just land or depart as and when they turn up.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: " Can you please explain why departure queues, holding to land, etc, will be extended, when (at current traffic levels) each runway will be handling only half the takeoffs and half the landings. "
Yes, WHBM, exactly right at current traffic levels, but the point of moving to mixed mode would be to cram in more movements within the existing infrastructure, and that too has its limititations (physically and politically). There is no alternative to further expansion.
Quote: "Cobblers. Clearly a leading proponent of HACAN. Can't be arsed proving you wrong, but if S1E won't, I gladly will."
Hardly a leading proponent of HACAN, Calmcavok, look at the facts, actually think LHR needs two more runways and soon!
Under a four runway situation, the retention of alternation (two runways for landing and two for takeoff) would almost certainly be the political trade off if this was ever to be approved, which is highly unlikely, obviously.
You could check my previous posts and take a look at the Thames airports threads and you will find consistent support for LHR expansion, and consistent scepticism of an estuary airport (sorry Silverstrata!), but suspect that "you can't be arsed".
Yes, WHBM, exactly right at current traffic levels, but the point of moving to mixed mode would be to cram in more movements within the existing infrastructure, and that too has its limititations (physically and politically). There is no alternative to further expansion.
Quote: "Cobblers. Clearly a leading proponent of HACAN. Can't be arsed proving you wrong, but if S1E won't, I gladly will."
Hardly a leading proponent of HACAN, Calmcavok, look at the facts, actually think LHR needs two more runways and soon!
Under a four runway situation, the retention of alternation (two runways for landing and two for takeoff) would almost certainly be the political trade off if this was ever to be approved, which is highly unlikely, obviously.
You could check my previous posts and take a look at the Thames airports threads and you will find consistent support for LHR expansion, and consistent scepticism of an estuary airport (sorry Silverstrata!), but suspect that "you can't be arsed".
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 14th May 2012 at 19:53.
It is quite possible that BAA have a point in their report and I have sympathy for those who wish to see a 3rd runway.
However, there is far too much conflict of interest in the owner of Heathrow publishing a report into why Govt should allow Heathrow to do more and why airlines can't go to Gatwick or Stansted (which happen to be either owned by a rival or likely to be soon)
It's just not possible to take this report seriously given BAA's past monopolistic behaviour - it reeks far too much of spin and lobbying.
However, there is far too much conflict of interest in the owner of Heathrow publishing a report into why Govt should allow Heathrow to do more and why airlines can't go to Gatwick or Stansted (which happen to be either owned by a rival or likely to be soon)
It's just not possible to take this report seriously given BAA's past monopolistic behaviour - it reeks far too much of spin and lobbying.
Heathrow opened immediately post-war.
Gatwick opened 1958 as a reliever, there were some attempts over the years, both forced and voluntary, to make it go of it, but for example all the US carriers who were required to use it just upped and walked out to Heathrow when the rules changed, they never wanted to go there. It now seems to be degenerating into just a base for Easyjet.
Stansted came along about 1986 as a further reliever, that also had a rise and fall and is again running down into just a Ryanair base, and passengers have fallen off 25% in the last five years.
Both these airports have demonstrated, in particular, that premium passenger demand, and connecting passenger demand just doesn't exist outside Heathrow. Plenty of airline shareholders' money has been spent over the years trying to prove this wrong but finding it is right, there's no need for any additional study. BAA might point this out but it's quite apparent for us all to see. The only success for business travel has been London City, a small niche place.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're amazingly Heathrow-centric.
I accept that this is because of lack of capacity at Heathrow, but why does Gatwick have new routes started/starting to Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, Lagos, Reykjavik and various others all with non-UK (non-Easyjet) airlines? Certainly not just an easyJet base... if you'd have said that before the BAA sale then I wouldn't have been so surprised. But to say that now is somewhat out of touch; you've only got to take a brief glance at Gatwick's present airlines/routes lists to see that it certainly isn't 'just a base for Easyjet'. The current owners wish to transfer it into a gateway to the emerging markets (for wont of a third runway at Heathrow) and so far they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that - not just appeasing Easyjet.
degenerating into just a base for Easyjet
Because it's a second-best holding operation to get at the UK market. Once slots come available (and, for once, there seems some likelihood of this at the moment in the BA-BMI fallout), they'll be off there like a shot.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you'd read my post you would have seen that I said that in my second sentence. The issue I was debating was whether Gatwick was:
I qualified that in practice this was blatantly untrue, throughout the rest of my post.
degenerating into just a base for Easyjet
Major airlines have already started shunning Heathrow Airport due to stringent capacity restraints, according to the boss of airport operator BAA - and they are taking aviation jobs with them.
a) Heathrow is capacity-constrained.
b) Airlines who would like to expand services from Heathrow, but can't get the slots, add capacity elsewhere.
c) If there were more slots and more flights at Heathrow, there would be more jobs.
Full marks to the consultancy who actually managed to get paid for stating the bl**ding obvious.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full marks to the consultancy who actually managed to get paid for stating the bl**ding obvious.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trying to make LGW as a rival airport for LHR was tried, and failed abysmally, in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. At a time when central government owned both airports, the "second force" civil aviation policy forced to be based at LGW. it should not be revisited now.
The UK private longhaul LGW-based carrier was expected to compete (on a playing-field about as level as that at Yeovil Football Club) with publicly owned LHR-based BEA and BOAC, later BA. There was a succession of them: BUA, BCal, Laker and Virgin.
Not surprisingly, BUA, BCal, and Laker all failed. Virgin survived only because it was able to move its base to LHR on the collapse of the ill-fated "second force" policy.
Both BA and VS retain a presence at LGW for historical reasons: BA because it inherited it on the takeover of BCal, and VS because it started there. It is no co-incidence that both use LGW for mainly leisure point-to-point destinations and keep LHR as the hub for connectivity.
Airport ownership has nothing to do with it. Before GIP bought LGW, airlines were shifting to LHR from LGW when opportunities presented, and that continues today. Expect Vietnam Airlines to move to LHR-4 at some stage and Korean to join the rest of it's operation at LHR.
As stated above, STN has declining pax numbers despite being FR's main UK base, so it would be pointless to have another runway there at this time, or in the near future.
LGW is more than just an U2 base although it's an important part of its business. LGW also does holiday flights and charters, and is a "waiting room" for carriers wanting access to LHR. In that respect, LGW is a hybrid airport, a little of everything.
We go round and round in circles but it all comes back to the same point: LHR expansion is the only game in town.
The UK private longhaul LGW-based carrier was expected to compete (on a playing-field about as level as that at Yeovil Football Club) with publicly owned LHR-based BEA and BOAC, later BA. There was a succession of them: BUA, BCal, Laker and Virgin.
Not surprisingly, BUA, BCal, and Laker all failed. Virgin survived only because it was able to move its base to LHR on the collapse of the ill-fated "second force" policy.
Both BA and VS retain a presence at LGW for historical reasons: BA because it inherited it on the takeover of BCal, and VS because it started there. It is no co-incidence that both use LGW for mainly leisure point-to-point destinations and keep LHR as the hub for connectivity.
Airport ownership has nothing to do with it. Before GIP bought LGW, airlines were shifting to LHR from LGW when opportunities presented, and that continues today. Expect Vietnam Airlines to move to LHR-4 at some stage and Korean to join the rest of it's operation at LHR.
As stated above, STN has declining pax numbers despite being FR's main UK base, so it would be pointless to have another runway there at this time, or in the near future.
LGW is more than just an U2 base although it's an important part of its business. LGW also does holiday flights and charters, and is a "waiting room" for carriers wanting access to LHR. In that respect, LGW is a hybrid airport, a little of everything.
We go round and round in circles but it all comes back to the same point: LHR expansion is the only game in town.
Have a look at the ignorance of our political "elite" then explain to me why stating the sheer bl33ding obvious isn't required?
Re-reading the original article, I'm not sure Mr Marshall does his argument any favours with the strange scenario that he paints: foreign airline X desires more slots at Heathrow, finds it can't get them, so then throws a hissy fit and pulls out all its flights, moving them to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or wherever.
If true, that would be a wonderfully self-regulating example of supply and demand in action, with more slots regularly being freed up by disgruntled vacating carriers, but somehow I don't think that's quite what he had in mind.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Re-reading the original article, I'm not sure Mr Marshall does his argument any favours with the strange scenario that he paints: foreign airline X desires more slots at Heathrow, finds it can't get them, so then throws a hissy fit and pulls out all its flights, moving them to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or wherever."
Would they do that? If so they would probably lease the slots and make some money in their absence.
AFAIK, correct me if this wrong, but my reading of the situation is that these carriers would stay at LHR but expand their operations at AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., because of an inability to do so at LHR.
The point is that they're not going to MAN, BHX, STN, etc.. and only a handful are using LGW as an "overflow" for the time being.
Would they do that? If so they would probably lease the slots and make some money in their absence.
AFAIK, correct me if this wrong, but my reading of the situation is that these carriers would stay at LHR but expand their operations at AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., because of an inability to do so at LHR.
The point is that they're not going to MAN, BHX, STN, etc.. and only a handful are using LGW as an "overflow" for the time being.