Airlines, Airports & Routes Topics about airports, routes and airline business.

Heathrow-2

Old 10th Feb 2018, 01:46
  #281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,915
One of the main environmental issues with LHR is the pollution caused by LGVs queuing at the cargo terminal.
They'll all be electric by the time a new rwy opens. Hell will also have frozen over by then, but will the UK will still be "transitioning" out of the EU?

I've said before - R3 will not be built. Not least of all, it's now waaay too late. The traffic has moved elsewhere and the traffic that would move in would not be enough. BUT if we could clear the stacks? That would be a huge environmental benefit.
Yes you have, many many times, and you may be right, but you cannot have it both ways. If you don't want stacks, and by implication queues on the ground, you have to have another rwy, because there will never be a reduction in movements. Pity the environmentalists don't understand this.

Heathrow Airport's control of building costs 'abysmal' - BBC News

Heathrow Airport has a "abysmal" record of controlling building costs said the boss of British Airways-owner IAG.

Willie Walsh told the BBC that other companies should be allowed to design and build any new terminals at Heathrow. Heathrow said it did not believe such a model was appropriate.
The government is due to publish final proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in the next few months. MPs will then vote on those plans. Mr Walsh called for an end to Heathrow airport's "monopoly" on its terminals. "Heathrow Airport Limited run an airport - they're not the best at designing or building the facilities," he said. "We believe that should be left to others who are much better, and who would have a greater focus on cost control."

Mr Walsh does not think that existing terminals should be sold off, but rather that competitors should be allowed to submit proposals for developing, designing and building new terminal facilities. "It's not rocket science, there are plenty of people who have been involved in this type of construction in other areas who would be interested," he said. "We know because we've been approached by many of them, who believe that they could do this in a much more efficient way than Heathrow."

Mr Walsh's call is the latest salvo in his ongoing war of words with Heathrow, which is ultimately owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial. IAG, which owns Iberia and Aer Lingus as well as BA, controls just over half the landing slots at Heathrow - Europe's busiest airport. Mr Walsh long been a vocal critic of the fees imposed on airlines by Heathrow, which stand at about 22 per passenger.

IAG said the proposed expansion of the airport could allow independent companies to build and operate commercial facilities at the airport, including terminals. "Heathrow's had it too good for too long and the government must confirm the Civil Aviation Authority's powers to introduce this type of competition," Mr Walsh said.

A spokesperson said Heathrow wanted to ensure competition and choice between airlines at the airport: "Expansion will open up opportunities for IAG, easyJet, flybe, Virgin and dozens of international airlines with whom we are working closely to deliver expansion at close to current charges." Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye is due to give evidence to MPs on the Transport Select Committee on Monday afternoon.

The third runway was due to cost almost 17bn, but Heathrow argued that it could complete the project for 14bn. Airlines fear that the airport will increase landing charges to help pay for the third runway. IAG has threatened to call for a price cap on landing charges if they do not fall after the new runway is finished. "With more passengers and the introduction of internal competition, the airport's charges should go down," Mr Walsh said. "If they remain at current levels we, along with other airlines, support a price cap to ensure they cannot rise and have written to the Transport Select Committee to highlight this."
Willie's problem is that IAG has nowhere else to go. In the end he'll have to suck it up.

Perhaps most outrageous of all, Flybe, which according to LHR's methodology loses over 100 points each for both its CDA adherence and its track-keeping performance, nevertheless gets propelled into first place after being awarded 930 points out of a possible 1000!
Oh very good!! Excellent pun, BE is not using jet aircraft to/from LHR.
Fairdealfrank is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 09:37
  #282 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank View Post
Oh very good!! Excellent pun
I wish I could say it had been intentional.

BE is not using jet aircraft to/from LHR.
Yes, I think we're all aware of that.

Interestingly, despite using turboprops Flybe only rank 10th best for Noise Quota used per seat per movement, because of course the Q400 (Dash 8) only has 78 seats.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 12:11
  #283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,141
As one who particularly notices their droning "Q"400s as they climb out over Berkshire/Bucks, let us not conflate quietness with turboprops. The Q400, with those big paddle-blade props, is anyway the noisiest of all current turboprops.
WHBM is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 16:08
  #284 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
For noise Quota Count purposes, the Q400 sits in between early (PW124) and later (PW127) ATR-72s. The Dash-8 is exempted on departure (< 84 EPNdB, so zero noise quota used) but not on arrival, whereas newer ATRs are exempted on both arrival and departure and older ones on neither.

If only Flybe operated shiny new ATRs, they would automatically be top of the rankings.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 20:23
  #285 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 62
Posts: 8,786
Fairdealfrank
Yes you have, many many times, and you may be right, but you cannot have it both ways. If you don't want stacks, and by implication queues on the ground, you have to have another rwy, because there will never be a reduction in movements. Pity the environmentalists don't understand this.
Sorry, should have clarified my position:
  1. I have been a supporter of R3 + R4 ever since I took an interest in the problem and that was over 30 years ago.
  2. I do not think it/they will be built for reasons stated (too often!)
  3. I think that LHR should have used the idea of reducing stacks as an important point and would play many at their own game.
  4. But LHR et al avoid mentioning the stacks as they don't want to draw attention to the hideous amount of pollution and time. The carriers just up the prices to cover the cost and it gets ignored.
  5. But everything will be ignored!!
  6. Rant over.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2018, 20:26
  #286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,141
Here by London City the Flybe and Luxair Q400s are the most noticeable of the turboprops. From inside the house I notice their noise on departure where I don't notice any of the other turbos (we even have the old VLM F50s back) on the same track.

For all the reference is to engine types, most of their noise comes from the prop tips.
I think that LHR should have used the idea of reducing stacks as an important point and would play many at their own game.
The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before. If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.
WHBM is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 08:39
  #287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
In fairness no closure of 23/05 means the central area would still be a congested mess, no new T2. That was one call that was spot on IMHO.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 08:52
  #288 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
Originally Posted by WHBM View Post
The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before.
Hmmm. You do realise that T2B, and eventually T2C, are astride the old 05/23 ?

If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.
Gosh. There was I thinking that I had a dim view of the media ...
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 15:37
  #289 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 62
Posts: 8,786
WHBM
The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before. If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.
I take SOE's point about space but, if it had been possible to relocate R3 to the correct place? Wow, what a day that would have been. Talk about PR 'spin'!

I only landed once on 23 - in a Viscount from IOM! No departures. So that was the early 80s sometime. When did it close?
PAXboy is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2018, 16:24
  #290 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
Sunday 27th October 2002. Last movement was a landing that morning by a SAA 747.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 06:20
  #291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 453
Would a crossing runway not reduce separation on the other runways and therefore hinder matters ?
Navpi is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 06:25
  #292 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
It's a complete red herring.

I'm waiting for some for some bright spark to suggest that Heathrow should have kept all six of its original runways open - just think how much capacity it would have with that many.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 10:00
  #293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,141
Bright Spark here who remembers the layout at Chicago O'Hare, up to about 15 years ago, with a 6-runway intersecting star pattern just like Heathrow once had, and the throughput they got from it was astounding (must be others here who recall it as well). And yes, they would have all six in use together. Dim recollection they got over 100 departures an hour. Like Heathrow, they eventually ran out of ground space as more the limiting factor, and have gone for substantial expansion.
WHBM is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2018, 12:37
  #294 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
Comparisons between O'Hare and Heathrow are meaningless.

The presence/absence of any of LHR's cross runways has never had any impact on capacity.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 08:45
  #295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: south coast
Posts: 384
Ground incident Heathrow ? 14/2/2018

Some stands un-useable to to a ground incident this morning ? any info out there ?
Barcli is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 09:15
  #296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 453
Despite claims to the contrary the incident at Heathrow is causing chaos. Friend on board a Zurich have been holding take off for 2 hours and can't now get back to stand because T5 is filling up with inbounds.

Seems to be an incident between two vehicles yet many news outlets are claiming that passengers are being evacuated?

Last edited by Navpi; 14th Feb 2018 at 09:38.
Navpi is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 09:18
  #297 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,113
Serious vehicle accident airside.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 09:32
  #298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Two ground vehicles appear to have crashed, looks like northern end of T5C on Taxiway C. Police in attendance and debris scattered, hence taxiway and stands closed.

As ever, in the UK, we err MASSIVELY on the side of caution, so connections missed and delays aplenty. In other westeren European countries, it would be swept up and ops normal much faster. We love a man in uniform with a clipboard we do...

https://news.sky.com/story/serious-a...field-11250025
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 09:57
  #299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 453
Brilliant from Skipness.

Total non incident which has now gone viral with claims of mass evacuations etc.

I'm incredulous that a minor incident is grounding planes, and delaying 000s of passengers.
Navpi is offline  
Old 14th Feb 2018, 10:31
  #300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Newcastle
Age: 48
Posts: 553
1 Person Killed, 1 other VSI.
MATELO is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.