Heathrow-2
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Usually if a post-0600 arrival is permitted to land before 0600, it’s because it’s been swapped with a pre-0600 arrival that is running late that day.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prophead - I seriously think the heat has got to you. Is there nothing that you won't argue AGAINST?
In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news.
At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time.
In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news.
At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time.
Thread Starter
That makes sense - the average number of arrivals before 0600 is usually around 14 (in Summer), though not necessarily the same flights every day. Having said that, there were a couple of days last month with 20+ 0430-0600 arrivals, with eight of them on one of those days having STAs between 0615 and 0635, most of them flights from the US.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prophead - I seriously think the heat has got to you. Is there nothing that you won't argue AGAINST?
In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news.
At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time.
In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news.
At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time.
I was merely pointing out your post, that seemed strangely overenthusiastic about them moving had no bearing on the Heathrow project but also, was quite uncalled for.
I think it is safe to assume there will be at least a few people finding themselves out of a job and your comment 'Ha Ha, So long suckers' wasn't really appropriate.
Skip quotes
The Cranford Agreement was removed by Labour’s Geoff Hoon years ago(#). 09L deps only (##) happen in the overnight period on the standard runway rotation published on the website, winds permitting. Daily 09L deps on a BAU basis are sub-par against target dep rate due to the lack of space abeam the 500s at the moment and more runway holds required (###)further developments were put on hold awaiting the decision on R3.
(#) 2010. (##) I am concentrating on 09L arrivals for 19hrs continually. (###) they were in the plans so why submit that were not suitable or correct.
Heathrow submitted plans to Hillingdon council, they were rejected, they went to appeal and they were granted. They then waited nearly 5 months and publicly declared they would not go ahead and absorb the plans into R3. This has saved them substantial money and delayed any respite for those living under the easterly patterns until minimum 2026. It also withdraws any noise over Cranford residents who would be aghast at the new noise footprint, which they will from both 09L and R3 in future.
The Cranford Agreement was removed by Labour’s Geoff Hoon years ago(#). 09L deps only (##) happen in the overnight period on the standard runway rotation published on the website, winds permitting. Daily 09L deps on a BAU basis are sub-par against target dep rate due to the lack of space abeam the 500s at the moment and more runway holds required (###)further developments were put on hold awaiting the decision on R3.
(#) 2010. (##) I am concentrating on 09L arrivals for 19hrs continually. (###) they were in the plans so why submit that were not suitable or correct.
Heathrow submitted plans to Hillingdon council, they were rejected, they went to appeal and they were granted. They then waited nearly 5 months and publicly declared they would not go ahead and absorb the plans into R3. This has saved them substantial money and delayed any respite for those living under the easterly patterns until minimum 2026. It also withdraws any noise over Cranford residents who would be aghast at the new noise footprint, which they will from both 09L and R3 in future.
@Trinity 09L
Your main complaint is that the system that's always been used in my lifetime, i.e. always landing on the Northern runway when on Easterlies remains in place. I don't know how long you have lived locally, four years for me, but that's been the situation for decades and I cannot fathom your genuine rage at this. I dare not get dragged into a long argument on this so are you :
1) A long time local
2) An incomer
Just to try and understand what is driving your anger here.
If you were a long time local, you'd be bench-marking against One Elevens, DC9s, Tridents, Concorde etc. My local pub has 787s crossing the perimeter fence with approach lights across the road from the beer garden barely needing a raised voice. BA 744s a different story obvs but that's progress.
Your main complaint is that the system that's always been used in my lifetime, i.e. always landing on the Northern runway when on Easterlies remains in place. I don't know how long you have lived locally, four years for me, but that's been the situation for decades and I cannot fathom your genuine rage at this. I dare not get dragged into a long argument on this so are you :
1) A long time local
2) An incomer
Just to try and understand what is driving your anger here.
If you were a long time local, you'd be bench-marking against One Elevens, DC9s, Tridents, Concorde etc. My local pub has 787s crossing the perimeter fence with approach lights across the road from the beer garden barely needing a raised voice. BA 744s a different story obvs but that's progress.
Thread Starter
We're continually being told by those who make the decisions that runway alternation respite, like motherhood and apple pie, is a Good Thing.
Other than a few anoraks, most West London residents would probably agree that, when 27s are in use, having aircraft inbound over their heads 50% of the time is preferable to 100% of the time.
Having been promised the same deal after many years of 100% of arrivals overhead when on easterlies, it's not that hard to understand why the residents of Windsor are dismayed to have been subsequently told that alternation isn't going to happen for another 10 years.
Other than a few anoraks, most West London residents would probably agree that, when 27s are in use, having aircraft inbound over their heads 50% of the time is preferable to 100% of the time.
Having been promised the same deal after many years of 100% of arrivals overhead when on easterlies, it's not that hard to understand why the residents of Windsor are dismayed to have been subsequently told that alternation isn't going to happen for another 10 years.
Druk
Many thanks for your explanation that there is an area with no respite for 19 hr landing operations for 30% of the year,and of course departures to the west 70%.
Skip
I have no rage or anger, emphasis in bold is to draw attention. My association pre dates jets you quote, to include Constellations, Britannia’s,Viscounts, Vanguards etc Coronado’s, 707 and DC 6,7,& 8.
I was working on the days the BOAC 707 returned to LHR, and proud to count one the cabin crew still alive as a friend. I was also at work when Papa India did not return but was responsible to get a memorial established in 2004.
I am unable to meet the civil servant who without the consent of the electorate or parliament introduced the Cranford agreement. I am a resident which covers the breadth of above reply.
Many thanks for your explanation that there is an area with no respite for 19 hr landing operations for 30% of the year,and of course departures to the west 70%.
Skip
I have no rage or anger, emphasis in bold is to draw attention. My association pre dates jets you quote, to include Constellations, Britannia’s,Viscounts, Vanguards etc Coronado’s, 707 and DC 6,7,& 8.
I was working on the days the BOAC 707 returned to LHR, and proud to count one the cabin crew still alive as a friend. I was also at work when Papa India did not return but was responsible to get a memorial established in 2004.
I am unable to meet the civil servant who without the consent of the electorate or parliament introduced the Cranford agreement. I am a resident which covers the breadth of above reply.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/heathrow-plans-could-push-up-the-cost-of-flights-z8jxsrfhv?CMP=Sprkr-_-Editorial-_-thetimes-_-Unspecified-_-TWITTER
I will refrain from using the word "suckers" which I concede was said in haste, but I could have sworn the Transport Commission suggested the 3rd runway would usher in a new era of low fares.
We need Davies to come in on a prancing pony and clarify the situation.
I will refrain from using the word "suckers" which I concede was said in haste, but I could have sworn the Transport Commission suggested the 3rd runway would usher in a new era of low fares.
We need Davies to come in on a prancing pony and clarify the situation.
Last edited by Navpi; 27th Jun 2018 at 21:23.
Thread Starter
An inquest after a fatal accident will typically take up to six months, sometimes longer, to complete. I suspect that this particular coroner's investigation will take some time.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but I could have sworn the Transport Commission suggested the 3rd runway would usher in a new era of low fares
Incidentally I read that our annual foreign aid budget was now £14bn. Whilst we argue about whether large sums should be spent on the north or south over 10+ years there is a huge amount going out of the country every single year.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lost for words.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/01/warnings-of-anger-and-outrage-if-government-cancels-transpennine-electrification?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Perhaps we should introduce "regionalism", as a form of persecution. Oh hang on, we have.
How the hell have the "peanuts" required for the Leeds Manchester line which I might add would be transformational come under so much scrutiny when HEATHROW has been waived thru ?
This has taken bollocksology to stratospheric levels of incompetence
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/01/warnings-of-anger-and-outrage-if-government-cancels-transpennine-electrification?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true
Perhaps we should introduce "regionalism", as a form of persecution. Oh hang on, we have.
How the hell have the "peanuts" required for the Leeds Manchester line which I might add would be transformational come under so much scrutiny when HEATHROW has been waived thru ?
This has taken bollocksology to stratospheric levels of incompetence
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ballymena
Posts: 1,438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navpi
No matter what evidence is to hand, the establishment always wanted the expansion at Lhr because it suits. That is regardless of cost, any other evidence etc. From the start of the last enquiry, the answer was always Lhr is the answer, what questions do we need to ask to get there. More importantly, what good evidence do we need to ignore. So the last report worked on the assumption that Lgw would not reach 40m pax until 2030 I think was the date. They are now past 45m already and no-one asks how can this be so wrong and how might it alter the result if the correct numbers were used? We will be told all sorts of lies about the wonderful benefits we will all enjoy from an expanded Lhr, almost all will never happen and nobody ever has to explain. The North doesn't matter at all, the world stops at Watford.
And we ridicule countries like Russia. Here is no better with some of the deceit that goes on.
No matter what evidence is to hand, the establishment always wanted the expansion at Lhr because it suits. That is regardless of cost, any other evidence etc. From the start of the last enquiry, the answer was always Lhr is the answer, what questions do we need to ask to get there. More importantly, what good evidence do we need to ignore. So the last report worked on the assumption that Lgw would not reach 40m pax until 2030 I think was the date. They are now past 45m already and no-one asks how can this be so wrong and how might it alter the result if the correct numbers were used? We will be told all sorts of lies about the wonderful benefits we will all enjoy from an expanded Lhr, almost all will never happen and nobody ever has to explain. The North doesn't matter at all, the world stops at Watford.
And we ridicule countries like Russia. Here is no better with some of the deceit that goes on.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to agree with the sentiments expressed in the last 2 posts by Navpi and True Blue. We're far from a 'United' Kingdom in some respects and the DfT and current Transport Secretary are only emphasising that point whether intended or not.
With hindsight, it is easy to see why the Commission's conclusion was inevitable. If 'retaining the UK's hub status' was part of its purpose, what other conclusion was a committee led by an establishment figure likely to come to? The Gatwick traffic forecast was a travesty. And only belatedly did it dawn on folk that Davies was happy to sacrifice growth of direct services at important regional airports for the benefit of Heathrow expansion. In that light, the claim that R3 would benefit the whole of the UK looks like a complete sham.
I wish it were down to just gross incompetence. Incompetents can be got rid of and replaced hopefully by those slightly less incompetent. However, I feel it's reflective of a deeper rooted problem and frankly I don't see things changing anytime soon.
With hindsight, it is easy to see why the Commission's conclusion was inevitable. If 'retaining the UK's hub status' was part of its purpose, what other conclusion was a committee led by an establishment figure likely to come to? The Gatwick traffic forecast was a travesty. And only belatedly did it dawn on folk that Davies was happy to sacrifice growth of direct services at important regional airports for the benefit of Heathrow expansion. In that light, the claim that R3 would benefit the whole of the UK looks like a complete sham.
I wish it were down to just gross incompetence. Incompetents can be got rid of and replaced hopefully by those slightly less incompetent. However, I feel it's reflective of a deeper rooted problem and frankly I don't see things changing anytime soon.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 1,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if Manchester-Leeds electrification is binned, any guesses as to where the money saved will be spent?? What other rail links to Heathrow can we conjure up?
Still, must try and not get too depressed about the priorities selected by the DfT and our wonderful Transport Secretary.
The sun's shining here in the North and some folk have even taken off their clogs and cloth caps.
Still, must try and not get too depressed about the priorities selected by the DfT and our wonderful Transport Secretary.
The sun's shining here in the North and some folk have even taken off their clogs and cloth caps.
Manfod.
Part of the uncosted infrastructure plans for LHR is the southern rail link to Staines so they can reach Waterloo and South West. It is only a dual track with third rail power no overhead lines and no current capacity for a new service.��
Part of the uncosted infrastructure plans for LHR is the southern rail link to Staines so they can reach Waterloo and South West. It is only a dual track with third rail power no overhead lines and no current capacity for a new service.��