Heathrow-2
My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/me...d-partnership/
Qantas will re-route its daily Sydney-London A380 service via Singapore rather than Dubai
Diesels etc
WHBM & Canberra97 I except my error and whilst standing in the naughty corner (on leave) found that cargo, catering vehicles are also disguising diesel engines, and those tugs that tow or push back aircraft.
DRUK thanks for the photo.
DRUK thanks for the photo.
Thread Starter
For several years, Heathrow has published a quarterly league table as part of its FlyQuiet programme showing which airlines perform best on several noise metrics, although it has never disclosed exactly how the rankings are worked out. BA Short Haul always manages to come top of the table. 
This year Heathrow has commendably not only added two more emissions-related metrics (hence now "Fly Quiet & Clean"), but has also revealed for the first time the process used to derive the overall league table positions, based on the rankings for each individual metric. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have grasped how its own methodology works, and as a result has made a complete dog's breakfast of calculating the league table positions and points.
BA Short Haul (as usual) is shown as top, but should be down in fifth place based on its individual metric rankings (it's near the bottom on one of the emissions metrics).
Some airlines (for example PK, TK, LY) get more than twice as many points as their performance actually merits and CX gets a 14-place hike up the table from where it should be.
Carriers that should be tied on points based on their metric rankings (e.g. American and Aegean) finish up to 9 places apart in the league table.
Expect the dodgy results to be pulled and correct ones substituted pretty soon, but in the meantime they can be viewed here: The League Table Q1 2017
This year Heathrow has commendably not only added two more emissions-related metrics (hence now "Fly Quiet & Clean"), but has also revealed for the first time the process used to derive the overall league table positions, based on the rankings for each individual metric. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have grasped how its own methodology works, and as a result has made a complete dog's breakfast of calculating the league table positions and points.
BA Short Haul (as usual) is shown as top, but should be down in fifth place based on its individual metric rankings (it's near the bottom on one of the emissions metrics).
Some airlines (for example PK, TK, LY) get more than twice as many points as their performance actually merits and CX gets a 14-place hike up the table from where it should be.
Carriers that should be tied on points based on their metric rankings (e.g. American and Aegean) finish up to 9 places apart in the league table.
Expect the dodgy results to be pulled and correct ones substituted pretty soon, but in the meantime they can be viewed here: The League Table Q1 2017
However the message has clearly struck home - Heathrow published the stats for Q2 in mid-August, but this time around they are password-protected, thereby hiding them from public scrutiny, which completely negates the stated aim of Fly Quiet & Clean that "The 50 busiest airlines at Heathrow will now be publicly ranked on their work to reduce emissions and noise in their operations".
The League Table Q2 2017
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?
Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM.
How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?
Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM.
and neither will Heathrow R3 frank.................
The government decided that Heathrow was full in 1977. The charter and IT business had already been pushed out to Luton, and new airlines were pushed out to Gatwick. Carriers like BUA and British Caledonian were banned from Heathrow (under the "second force" policy) as were all USA carriers except Pan Am and TWA thanks to the UK/USA Bermuda agreement. These days, Gatwick still acts as a waiting room for new carriers wishing to acquire Heathrow slots.
It has taken 40 years to NOT build another parallel rwy at Heathrow.
On that basis, how long do you think it would take to build an airport bigger than Heathrow and all the accompanying infrastructure and urbanisation at a Thames estuary site in the middle of nowhere? 200 years, 300 years?
Time to get real: even if Boris Island was going to be built, Heathrow would obviously STILL need a third and fourth parallel rwy in the interim, as it would be a very long interim and the existing situation at Heathrow is untenable. Having finally achieved a four rwy Heathrow, there would be no appetite to close it, and without its closure Boris Island is sunk.
The Boris Island thread is full of other reasons why this airport will never be built, so to reiterate, the statement that "Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM" is accurate and fact. The statement that "neither will Heathrow R3 frank" is conjecture, although the balance of probability may support that statement.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John...ish_politician)
This chap has just been appointed senior advisor!
This chap has just been appointed senior advisor!
My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky?
Thread Starter
Well two months on and it would seem my optimism was misplaced - Heathrow continues to publish those dodgy Q1 stats and has clearly decided to brazen it out, maintaining disingenuously that it's not aware of any issues with the data, even though any bright GCSE Maths student could spot the flaky arithmetic a mile off.
Heathrow denies that it's mathematically challenged, and instead rather strangely maintains that nobody could possibly derive the Fly Quiet and Clean scores just based on the airlines' relative performance for each of the seven weighted metrics (despite the FQC website saying that that's exactly how the scoring does work).
Instead, it says, there are various fudge factors ("inputs"), which it won't divulge, but which are applied to the scores obtained from the airlines' relative performance, and have the happy effect of inflating those scores by an average of about 45%. Even worse, these increases aren't applied uniformly (some airlines have their scores more than doubled), which of course then alters the relative league table rankings.
Fortuitously, that has the effect of propelling BA from the Number 5 slot that its performance actually merits to its customary slot at the top of the table, so it can't be all bad. Unless you work for Aer Lingus, deprived of the Number 1 slot it deserves, or unfortunate carriers like SriLankan or Icelandair, who get shunted nearly 20 places down the table from where they should rightfully be.
A cynic might think that the more an airline pays in landing fees, the better its chances of being classified as quiet and clean.
Thread Starter
Looks like we may be making progress, of a sort.
Heathrow has removed the references to the "Q2 2017 biggest climbers" that were based on the flawed Q1 stats and the still unpublished Q2 results (the latter are, reportedly, due to be unveiled this week).
Whether that's a precursor to a wholesale overhaul of the published Q1 scores remains to be seen, but it's an encouraging indication that Heathrow has been investing in new batteries for its calculators.
Heathrow has removed the references to the "Q2 2017 biggest climbers" that were based on the flawed Q1 stats and the still unpublished Q2 results (the latter are, reportedly, due to be unveiled this week).
Whether that's a precursor to a wholesale overhaul of the published Q1 scores remains to be seen, but it's an encouraging indication that Heathrow has been investing in new batteries for its calculators.
Thread Starter
Hmmm, looks like I spoke too soon. 
Q2 results were published today, with Delta convincingly meriting the Number One slot, due largely to being best performer for CDAs and track-keeping (the two highest-weighted metrics), joint highest-rated for Night Quota observance (with zero violations) and in the 20 best carriers for all but one of the other metrics.
Sadly, Heathrow's flaky maths has relegated DL to 7th place in the standings, for reasons known only to the number-crunchers there.
Other airlines featuring in the "we wuz robbed" stakes include Qantas, way down in 17th place despite its performance meriting the Number Three slot and Malaysian, unfairly shoved 11 places down from its rightful place in the Top Five just above Aer Lingus (who bizarrely get awarded an undeserved first place, perhaps to compensate for being robbed of it last time around).
You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has.
Q2 results were published today, with Delta convincingly meriting the Number One slot, due largely to being best performer for CDAs and track-keeping (the two highest-weighted metrics), joint highest-rated for Night Quota observance (with zero violations) and in the 20 best carriers for all but one of the other metrics.
Sadly, Heathrow's flaky maths has relegated DL to 7th place in the standings, for reasons known only to the number-crunchers there.
Other airlines featuring in the "we wuz robbed" stakes include Qantas, way down in 17th place despite its performance meriting the Number Three slot and Malaysian, unfairly shoved 11 places down from its rightful place in the Top Five just above Aer Lingus (who bizarrely get awarded an undeserved first place, perhaps to compensate for being robbed of it last time around).
You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has.
Thread Starter
Or send the stats to Donald, to add to his collection of Alternative Facts.
Aside from the creative accounting, the headlines accompanying the results suggest that Heathrow may have a less-than-perfect grasp of what's happening on its own runways:
Well, yes - except that AI has had the same schedule throughout the two quarters being compared (1 x 777, 3 x 787 daily), so their 37-place jump up the table between Q1 and Q2 (in reality a not-quite-so-meteoric 19-place rise to 13th place) can't possibly be attributed to non-existent equipment changes.
In fact the airline hasn't actually improved its ranking at all on any of the noise or emissions metrics (according to Heathrow's own figures).
AI's league table hike is solely attributable to a much better ranking for track-keeping (it was in bottom place for the previous quarter) and a modest improvement for the Night Quota metric - neither of which have anything to do with the aircraft type being used.
Aside from the creative accounting, the headlines accompanying the results suggest that Heathrow may have a less-than-perfect grasp of what's happening on its own runways:
"Air India has climbed an astounding 37 places to place 5th this quarter, in part because of their use of Boeing Dreamliners at Heathrow, an aircraft that has 20-25% fewer C02 [sic] emissions and a smaller noise effect than the airplanes [sic] it replaces"
In fact the airline hasn't actually improved its ranking at all on any of the noise or emissions metrics (according to Heathrow's own figures).
AI's league table hike is solely attributable to a much better ranking for track-keeping (it was in bottom place for the previous quarter) and a modest improvement for the Night Quota metric - neither of which have anything to do with the aircraft type being used.
Thread Starter
The mystery deepens still further, were that possible ...
The results that rank "the 50 busiest airlines operating at Heathrow from April to June this year" strangely omit any details for Icelandair, MEA and Egyptair, all of whom maintained two daily flights throughout those three months.
And yet the likes of Croatian (9 flights per week) and China Southern (a single daily flight up to the beginning of June) are included.
Go figure, as our American cousins say.
The results that rank "the 50 busiest airlines operating at Heathrow from April to June this year" strangely omit any details for Icelandair, MEA and Egyptair, all of whom maintained two daily flights throughout those three months.
And yet the likes of Croatian (9 flights per week) and China Southern (a single daily flight up to the beginning of June) are included.
Go figure, as our American cousins say.
Thread Starter
Update:
Latest indications suggest that Heathrow finally realises that it has egg on its face as a result of its flaky arithmetic, but has dug itself in a hole so deep that it's struggling to find a face-saving way of climbing out.
Meanwhile, with an irony that won't be lost on regular PPRuNers, an airline whose name can't be mentioned on here and which only manages 35th place (out of 50) for both its NOx emissions and track-keeping performance, thereby forfeiting 248 of the 357 points available for those two metrics, nevertheless gets awarded an aggregate score of 900 out of 1,000.
I wish my accountant could be that creative.
Latest indications suggest that Heathrow finally realises that it has egg on its face as a result of its flaky arithmetic, but has dug itself in a hole so deep that it's struggling to find a face-saving way of climbing out.
Meanwhile, with an irony that won't be lost on regular PPRuNers, an airline whose name can't be mentioned on here and which only manages 35th place (out of 50) for both its NOx emissions and track-keeping performance, thereby forfeiting 248 of the 357 points available for those two metrics, nevertheless gets awarded an aggregate score of 900 out of 1,000.
I wish my accountant could be that creative.
Thread Starter
It's hard to tell whether we're seeing an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, or just plain old-fashioned hubris on the part of Heathrow. Maybe a bit of both.
Either way, reacting by burying its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away isn't the kind of mature response one expects from a multi-billion pound company that wants the world to believe it's an environmentally responsible neighbour.