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

Heathrow-2

Old 13th Mar 2018, 21:59
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
Departing BA059 was at 1500 feet by the first reservoir as I watch fr24 and hear it roll.
Departing Garuda B77W was at 2000 ft by Wraysbury reservoir heading for CGK. Phillipines B77W for MNL 1000ft at same point. Low heavies tend to B787s which are the quietest of long haul but derate their take offs.
The medium and heavy profiles are not too dis-similar as the SID height is a lowly 6000ft to stop conflict with inbound traffic.

Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 13th Mar 2018 at 23:50.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 07:51
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
Softening up exercise for a No ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43405684
Navpi is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 09:04
  #383 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,643
Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo View Post
Departing Garuda B77W was at 2000 ft by Wraysbury reservoir heading for CGK. Phillipines B77W for MNL 1000ft at same point. Low heavies tend to B787s which are the quietest of long haul but derate their take offs.
All LHR departures are subject to the "1,000 ft rule" which dictates that they must be at least 1000' AAL by the time they reach a point 6.5 km from the start of the takeoff roll. That's roughly overhead the original noise monitors, most of which (on 27s) are along the western edge of Wraysbury Reservoir.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 09:58
  #384 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,192
I reckon the most likely reasoning behind a NO would be the cost to the public purse, if that is presented as "yet more public spendin in London instead of (name your county)", as show in the Guardian article above.
c52 is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2018, 11:59
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 407
HAL finance the expansion through loans from overseas investors, and from increased profit they repay the debt + interest, therefore not paying any corporation tax in UK.
They require HMG to fund rail connections + TFL upgrades on tube, + the unquantifiable costs of traffic congestion during construction, and pollution caused by expansion in the air and ground.
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 16th Mar 2018, 23:38
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
https://www.ttgmedia.com/news/news/n...-service-13555

I'm sure Crossrail /Elizabethan Line was envisaged as a West East West commuter line, not a feeder service for Heathrow. It wasn't built to carry suitcases!
Navpi is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2018, 14:00
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 38
Posts: 6,168
It was always intended to get people to Heathrow Navpi, that’s a huge part of the selling point. It takes pressure of the Piccadilly Line for commuters as well. It was very much designed and sold as a feeder for Heathrow but it won’t be as “luxurious” the Heathrow Express, as expensive or as pretentious.

The way everyone is shouted at to wait on the platform while the “SECURITY CHECK” is performed is just a joke.
Skipness One Echo is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 22:27
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...tors-k9l0kd9j9

At least corporation tax is ringfenced.
Navpi is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2018, 22:59
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oil Capital of Central Scotland
Age: 52
Posts: 416
Originally Posted by Navpi View Post
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...tors-k9l0kd9j9

At least corporation tax is ringfenced.
.... As is the Times website, unless you feel you want to donate to Rupert's retirement fund.

However, I tend to agree with the sentiment though - Heathrow & its Spanish master Ferrovial should not expect to keep up- the same rate of return to shareholders whilst laying their shiny new tarmac. That's why its called an investment - it needs time to be repaid.

To try to soak the travelling public or the government to keep up their dividends would be just a bit much.
Donkey497 is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 10:59
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 407
The bosses of some of the world’s biggest airlines received a strange request last year from Heathrow airport — it wanted to spend £74,000 to chop down three trees. A little research suggested that the quoted price was up to 20 times what a tree surgeon would normally charge for the simple task, if the trees were located elsewhere.

A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 17:22
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 72
Posts: 242
Originally Posted by Donkey497 View Post

However, I tend to agree with the sentiment though - Heathrow & its Spanish master Ferrovial should not expect to keep up- the same rate of return to shareholders whilst laying their shiny new tarmac. That's why its called an investment - it needs time to be repaid.

To try to soak the travelling public or the government to keep up their dividends would be just a bit much.

But from HAL's point of view isn't that what it's all about? You increase the regulated asset base on which your max permitted revenue is calculated. After deducting operating costs,the difference between that and your cost of capital is your margin. If you're not allowed to make a margin, how can you justify the investment to your shareholders? HAL is only interested in promoting the scheme on the basis it makes an adequate margin for them.
anothertyke is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 19:57
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 6,232
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L View Post
The bosses of some of the world’s biggest airlines received a strange request last year from Heathrow airport — it wanted to spend £74,000 to chop down three trees. A little research suggested that the quoted price was up to 20 times what a tree surgeon would normally charge for the simple task, if the trees were located elsewhere.

A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence
This is standard stuff in regulated industries. You try and present your costs as HIGH as possible, as the regulator is looking to give you a fixed percentage return on your asset. Reduce the margin by excessive costs and they will let you get back up to the agreed amount by increasing regulated income like landing fees. The regulator should be alert and auditing for this.

The real classic is the cost of runway 3. A lot of this is land purchase, including "all of Harmondsworth". Now HAL/BAA etc have been buying up property in Harmondsworth etc for years as it comes onto the market. But they pass it on, at cost, to a separate organisation, which is owned through various overseas companies. Meanwhile they rent it out. They also regularly revalue all of the property there at current market value, as allowed by the regulations. This is part of the reason why the costs go ever upwards. Should the project start, they will buy it back from the separate company, but of course at then current market price, which, backed up by surveyors' valuations, they will present to the regulator as part of their return on investment calculation.
WHBM is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2018, 22:12
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
Crossrail was always about improving capacity between Paddington & Liverpool street with added feeders east and west

Lhr only came into it when HS 3 was scrapped IIRC
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 07:15
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry View Post
Crossrail was always about improving capacity between Paddington & Liverpool street with added feeders east and west

Lhr only came into it when HS 3 was scrapped IIRC
This is true. It was supposed to massively improve capacity for commuters in West London but has now morphed into a Heathrow feeder service. The impact on journeys will be dramatic as suggested by TFL. Can you imagine passengers getting on with 2 pieces of hand luggage each .

It will halve the avaliable f'cast capacity instantly.
Navpi is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2018, 08:49
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,085
A lot of people outside C London are being conned - it will really be a stopping service all the way from Reading to Essex - not quick at all

It will save commuters from changing at Paddington or Liverpool Street which will be a saving but really it's about increasing capacity W-E across C london
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2018, 18:31
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 461
From today's leader in The Times.
Apologies for length but it's behind a paywall so out of reach for most readers.


MPs are always voting on things they don’t know much about. But you would think that, by now, a few facts would have been established ahead of this summer’s big vote — on the £14 billion third runway at Heathrow.

For starters, the idea has been knocking around since 1968. Plus, the project has had a recent update: the £20 million waste of public money otherwise known as the 2015 Airports Commission report, the one that got all the traffic forecasts wrong and ducked two key issues: noise and air quality. On top, there’s been the government consultation on the Airports National Policy Statement.

And now? Well, Wednesday next week is the deadline for submissions to the airport’s own consultation — the one all “about helping to shape our expansion plans at an early stage”. Yes, an early stage. Heathrow’s not kidding, either. Despite spending £30 million so far on planning, the main message from its 70-pager is how much is still up in the air — a point you hope MPs on the transport committee will raise in their report due by Friday.

Yet it’s on the basis of these sketchy plans that MPs will vote for or against the project. Rather fundamentally, Heathrow doesn’t even yet know precisely where the runway is going. As it notes, that still requires “further work” to determine its “exact” length, “end locations” and “how they sit in relation to the Colnbrook and Sipson communities”. Neither does it know precisely how it will cross that problem known as the M25.

And partly because of all this, it’s a long way from producing a third runway safety case — done in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority. Of course, there’s no suggestion Heathrow would build anything that wasn’t safe. It’s just that “there will be ramifications that come with the safety case that raise questions over how many planes it can handle safely and the respite it can give over noise”.


Or so says Jock Lowe, the former Concorde pilot behind the other Heathrow plan shortlisted by the Airports Commission: the £5 billion cheaper Heathrow Hub project based on extending an existing runway. Mr Lowe says that the airport’s northwest runway plan has “significant flaws”, not least because of safety constraints around the middle runway.

Planes will require extra space for taxiing on the ground or turning in the air. And that, he says, will have two key effects. First, Heathrow will not be able to deliver the promised 740,000 air movements a year; in fact less than 700,000, so cutting the project’s economic benefits. Second, due to the complexity of flight paths caused by planes turning, the approaches will be much noisier than billed for local residents.

One reason, maybe, for one glaring hole in the consultations: no news on flight paths. Indeed, Heathrow admits that it will not even be consulting on “flight path options” until “around 2021” — years after the MPs have voted. True, it dismisses Mr Lowe’s analysis, noting that the commission found his project “less attractive” — even if the commission did get quite a lot wrong. And as Heathrow points out, should the MPs vote in favour, there will be planning inquiries, further consultations and possible judicial reviews before anything actually gets built.

Yet here are a few things that won’t be resolved before the MPs vote: the project’s cost, final design, safety case, road and rail links, noise and air quality. Or to put it another way, just about everything we need to know. After half a century in the planning, you’d think Heathrow could do better than that.
Navpi is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 06:47
  #397 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,868
It will never be built.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 09:16
  #398 (permalink)  
c52
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,192
Is there even the prospect for a safety case for the unique solution of making the Northern runway double-length?
c52 is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 19:48
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: on the border line
Posts: 74
How about Heathrow goes 24 hours...

Limits movements over night to say 20 total movements in/out per hour..min seating of 200. with ultra quiet aircraft...Spends a few million on noise suppression ie Double glazing..
so that’s 6 hours roughly at 120 movements..

Uses dual runway ops during day...solved..everyone( nearly) happy and growth achieved for minimal cash outlay..easy eh!!
highwideandugly is online now  
Old 22nd Mar 2018, 19:55
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Originally Posted by highwideandugly View Post
How about Heathrow goes 24 hours...

Limits movements over night to say 20 total movements in/out per hour..min seating of 200. with ultra quiet aircraft...Spends a few million on noise suppression ie Double glazing..
so that’s 6 hours roughly at 120 movements..

Uses dual runway ops during day...solved..everyone( nearly) happy and growth achieved for minimal cash outlay..easy eh!!
With those comments you make it sound so straight forward but I'm afraid it won't happen.
canberra97 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.