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

Heathrow-2

Old 6th Nov 2018, 09:38
  #841 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 812
How do they get away with this nonsense?

Where are investigating journalists when you need them??
​​​
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2018, 22:31
  #842 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 60
Posts: 484
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-playing-numbers-game-lxgrrbv0r

I cannot for the life of me understand why all these doubters including an exasperated CAA don't come on here. Plenty here seem to have all the answers !

it's not just the noise they are concealing!
Navpi is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 04:52
  #843 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 63
Posts: 8,983

BBC news

Heathrow disruption after runway lights fault
PAXboy is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 13:02
  #844 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 411
They were still fixing the figures to cover the cost of R3 and FQ&G when the lights went out, and they realised they had not paid the electricity account. If the CAA cannot understand HAL accounts and funding, they will when it all goes wrong and HMG has to pick up the bills for R3
Trinity 09L is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2018, 14:01
  #845 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 561
when it all goes wrong and HMG has to pick up the bills for R3
HMG picks up the bill for nothing, our children and grandchildren will be paying for it. Fine if it’s all honest, above board and a good return, but I suspect HAL will reap the rewards for our investment
Dan Dare is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2018, 13:39
  #846 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: London
Posts: 265
Garuda restarting Jakarta from 27/11/18
jdcg is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2018, 16:09
  #847 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Birmingham
Age: 58
Posts: 689
You mean Garuda discontuining Jakarta
BHX5DME is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2018, 16:33
  #848 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
Originally Posted by BHX5DME View Post
You mean Garuda discontuining Jakarta
No, restarting.

Garuda Indonesia resumes London service in late-Nov 2018
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2018, 20:51
  #849 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
Latest creative accounting by Heathrow

After more than two weeks hidden from the public, Heathrow has now published the results from its Fly Quiet & Green programme for 2018 Q3.

Unfortunately it seems determined to persist with the flaky arithmetic and absence of logic and common sense that characterised the results for previous quarters (which remain unaltered).

For Q3, as with previous quarters, league table scores have again been inflated, this time by a record 45% compared to the results that are produced when Heathrow's own published methodology and performance rankings are used. Once again that increase has not been applied uniformly across all 50 airlines (some of the poorer performing carriers have been awarded more than double the number of points that they merit), with the result that the relative league table positions are significantly altered.

Among the many anomalies in the Q3 results are:

a Individual airline scores are inflated by between 17% and 138%, with the poorest performing carriers receiving the biggest unjustified increase in their score. The lowest score awarded by Heathrow, 465 points, is over 200 points more than the airline in question actually merits based on its performance.

b Emirates and (again) Cathay Pacific are given an unexplained hike up the table (by 16 and 14 places respectively).

c Airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter's published results include Kuwait Airways, relegated 16 places from its rightful position, together with Qantas, also robbed (again) of 16 places. Qantas, despite meriting 470 points by Heathrow's own methodology, putting it just above Eurowings, bizarrely ends up 14 places below the German carrier.

d "RAG" (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example El Al and Ethiopian Airlines, ranked 47th and 48th, respectively, by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an "Amber" for that category while Delta and Aer Lingus, ranked 31st and 32nd for that metric by Heathrow, both get a "Red". Go figure.

e A total of 182 flights by Finnair's A350 fleet appear not to have been taken into account in calculating the results, with only its narrow-body flights having been counted.

Q3 2018
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 08:40
  #850 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 41
Posts: 4,315
Dave, when you say things like 'rightful place', what data are you using to decide that?
Gonzo is online now  
Old 15th Nov 2018, 16:34
  #851 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
Dave, when you say things like 'rightful place', what data are you using to decide that?
That's a fair question. The answer is: I'm using Heathrow's own data.

For a description of the methodology that's supposedly being followed (but isn't), see: Fly Quiet & Green - How We Calculate

Heathrow's rules can be summarised as follows:

Airlines gain a maximum aggregate score of 1,000 Fly Quiet & Green points by being in first place for every metric.

An airline in last (50th) place for any metric scores 0 points for that metric (so if a hapless airline was in last place for every metric, it would score zero points out of 1,000).

Overall league table scores are the aggregate of an airline's place-related scores for each of the seven metrics.

A weighting schema (as described in the link) determines the maximum points available for the different metrics - for CDA violations first place merits 268 points, first place for NOx emissions gets 89 points, etc.
So essentially, airlines gain points pro rata for every place above bottom ranking that they achieve for each metric, up to the maximum available for that metric.

If we apply Heathrow's own rules to its reported results for Oman Air, for example:




Heathrow ranks Oman Air 20th (out of 50 airlines) for CDA violations, and so the carrier forfeits 104 of the 268 available points for that one metric alone, thereby scoring 164 points for CDAs. Likewise another 60 points are deducted from a perfect score of 89 for its 34th place for NOx emissions, etc

So based on the 164 points deducted for those two metrics alone, Oman Air can't possibly merit an aggregate score awarded by Heathrow of 917 out of 1,000 !

In fact based on Heathrow's positions (see above) for all 7 metrics (including also 24th out of 50 for Noise quota count per seat), Oman Air forfeits a total of 230 points from a perfect 1,000 score, thereby achieving 770 points not 917.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 08:25
  #852 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 41
Posts: 4,315
Sorry, I thought when you said data you meant the NTK and emissions databases that the airport uses.

Are you just looking at what points you think each airline has in each category, then adding them up and coming up with a different aggregate? It says individual metric scores are not published, so you’re assuming these scores?

Do you know it’s a pro rata points scheme though? I might have missed it, but I couldn’t see that described on the site
Gonzo is online now  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 10:00
  #853 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
All best answered from the previous link.

Originally Posted by Gonzo View Post
Sorry, I thought when you said data you meant the NTK and emissions databases that the airport uses.

Are you just looking at what points you think each airline has in each category, then adding them up and coming up with a different aggregate? It says individual metric scores are not published, so you’re assuming these scores?
No, no assumptions are being made.

As Heathrow's explanation of the metrics does indeed make clear "Individual metric scores will not be published". That's to say we can't tell how well or badly an individual airline has performed against specific benchmarks (other than the coarse red/amber/green classification bands).

The only thing we can be sure of is whether Airline X was better/worse than Airline Y for any given metric, for example in the above stats for Oman Air we can tell that 19 airlines performed better than it did on CDAs (but not how much better).

But relative rankings are the basis on which Heathrow says it has derived the "league table" points, so the published rankings are all the information we need in order to be able to check the validity of its results.

Incidentally, since the scores are relative and not absolute, we can't tell either whether an airline has actually improved its performance quarter-on-quarter - all we can know is whether the number of other airlines better/worse than it has gone up or down since the previous quarter (but that's a different issue).

Do you know it’s a pro rata points scheme though? I might have missed it, but I couldn’t see that described on the site
The points values for first and last place are unambiguously defined and "The final score for each airline is calculated by adding up combinations of an airline’s ranking position for each individual metric and the weighting set for the given metric" strongly implies a direct linear relationship between places lost and points lost so that, for example, an airline halfway down the rankings for a given metric gets half the available points, and so on.

Besides, I can't think of any way that even a grossly skewed (and disingenuously undocumented) "points losts per place" sliding scale would produce the published results, with individual airline aggregate scores inflated by between +17% and +138%.

As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true ...
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 10:58
  #854 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: London
Posts: 273
How easy would it be for easyJet to operate the Flybe slots to and from ABZ/EDI if Flybe decide to give them up. Recent analysis shows that LHR routes are not doing well for Flybe. No surprise given lack of network synergy/code-share partners and the high cost per seat of a Q400 into LHR.
Sharklet_321 is offline  
Old 16th Nov 2018, 11:50
  #855 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: scotland
Posts: 728
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321 View Post
How easy would it be for easyJet to operate the Flybe slots to and from ABZ/EDI if Flybe decide to give them up. Recent analysis shows that LHR routes are not doing well for Flybe. No surprise given lack of network synergy/code-share partners and the high cost per seat of a Q400 into LHR.
Most of BE domestics to EDI and ABZ have codeshare. Just looked at the 08:45 to EDI (BE2102) and there is code share with AI, CX, EK, EY, SQ and VS which also applies to the later flight at 11:20.
goldeneye is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2018, 11:30
  #856 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
Time based separation increases capacity by 1.4 landings at Heathrow

Per hour, in case anyone was wondering.

International Airport Review: Time based separation increases capacity by 1.4 landings at Heathrow
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 18th Nov 2018, 18:51
  #857 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: UK
Age: 49
Posts: 1,016
Originally Posted by Sharklet_321 View Post
Recent analysis shows that LHR routes are not doing well for Flybe.
What is this analysis you talk of?
VickersVicount is offline  
Old 18th Nov 2018, 19:53
  #858 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 11,012
Originally Posted by VickersVicount View Post
What is this analysis you talk of?
The CAA publishes traffic statistics for UK domestic routes, with the most recent (for September) showing LHR/EDI 103K and LHR/ABZ 58K.

But of course that's the total of BA+BE. On routes with more than one carrier the shares are never published, so I'd be equally interested to know where any Flybe figures have come from.
DaveReidUK is online now  
Old 23rd Nov 2018, 12:24
  #859 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EDI, LCY
Posts: 362
The DfT announcement on LHR-NQY does not specify, but I presume these new PSO-supported slots are picked from the pool of ex-bmi remedy slots that, by happy coincidence, are being operated by the same carrier. If so, I wonder which frequencies or routes we'll see dropped.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...l-and-heathrow

Overall, this move seems to solve a number of political, financial and operational inconveniences.
ajamieson is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2018, 09:03
  #860 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 41
Posts: 4,315
DRUK,

he only thing we can be sure of is whether Airline X was better/worse than Airline Y for any given metric, for example in the above stats for Oman Air we can tell that 19 airlines performed better than it did on CDAs (but not how much better).
Exactly, so I’d argue you’re not using ‘data’. You’re extrapolating back from the final results to try and determine what that data is.
Gonzo is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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