Heathrow-2
Thread Starter
Heathrow announced in July that the planned T6 and related infrastructure would be cut from the plans, which will presumably account for a fair chunk of that £6.8 Bn.
DRUK
Will that mean that pax will walk from what is T6 but will also be named T5 satellite, as it is not an extra terminal situated elsewhere,
or just no shopping mall therein.
They need to save money to find a route for the A4.
"as they are trying to cut £ 6 Bn off the costs" are they short of money?
Will that mean that pax will walk from what is T6 but will also be named T5 satellite, as it is not an extra terminal situated elsewhere,
or just no shopping mall therein.They need to save money to find a route for the A4.
"as they are trying to cut £ 6 Bn off the costs" are they short of money?
Thread Starter
The first few iterations of the R3 plan showed, initially, Terminal 6 just west of T5, roughly astride the A3044 Stanwell Moor Road, and three T6 satellites (with provision for a fourth) between 09L/27R and R3. The satellites were oriented N-S so that the stands pointed E-W. The main "T6A" had no provision for aircraft stands connected to it, only those on the satellites.
The "optimised" version that superseded the above (with R3 moved further south so as not to impinge on the current M4/M25 interchange) no longer had room between the runways for satellites oriented N-S, so they were rotated to be aligned E-W (stands pointing N-S) and reduced in number to two satellites.
The July announcement implied that T6A was no more and that the capacity of the existing terminals would be expanded instead. Where that leaves the previously planned satellites remains to be seen.
Clearly, increasing runway capacity (and movements) by up to 50% isn't feasible without a corresponding increase in the number of stands, so they will have to go somewhere.
The "optimised" version that superseded the above (with R3 moved further south so as not to impinge on the current M4/M25 interchange) no longer had room between the runways for satellites oriented N-S, so they were rotated to be aligned E-W (stands pointing N-S) and reduced in number to two satellites.
The July announcement implied that T6A was no more and that the capacity of the existing terminals would be expanded instead. Where that leaves the previously planned satellites remains to be seen.
Clearly, increasing runway capacity (and movements) by up to 50% isn't feasible without a corresponding increase in the number of stands, so they will have to go somewhere.
Thread Starter
At last, the mystery of "Quietgate" is solved !
Forget all the evidence about the published methodology not being followed, I'm given to understand from contacts on Heathrow's Community Noise Forum that at a recent meeting members were told by the airport that the Fly Quiet & Clean scores are arbitrary and were never intended to be taken literally. So, despite what it disingenuously says on the FQC website, there is no reason to expect that the points awarded will correspond to the airlines' ranking positions for individual noise and emissions metrics - that, apparently, doesn't produce the desired results.
Apparently, the FQC programme actually works by allowing Heathrow to spotlight particular airlines in respect of their environmental performance (good or bad), and the scores are assigned accordingly to put the appropriate emphasis on the airline(s) concerned. As the old saying goes, the end justifies the means.
A happy by-product of the manipulation of the scores is to make all Heathrow's airlines appear, on average, an extra 45% quieter and cleaner than their performance actually merits, and some of the worst airlines are shown as more than twice as quiet and clean as they really are. In other words it's a win-win for everyone, well for the airport and the airlines, at least.
Presumably we'll get used to more airlines showing meteoric quarter-on-quarter jumps in position, until we get to the point where all 50 airlines occupy the Number One slot.
So that's all good, then.
Forget all the evidence about the published methodology not being followed, I'm given to understand from contacts on Heathrow's Community Noise Forum that at a recent meeting members were told by the airport that the Fly Quiet & Clean scores are arbitrary and were never intended to be taken literally. So, despite what it disingenuously says on the FQC website, there is no reason to expect that the points awarded will correspond to the airlines' ranking positions for individual noise and emissions metrics - that, apparently, doesn't produce the desired results.
Apparently, the FQC programme actually works by allowing Heathrow to spotlight particular airlines in respect of their environmental performance (good or bad), and the scores are assigned accordingly to put the appropriate emphasis on the airline(s) concerned. As the old saying goes, the end justifies the means.
A happy by-product of the manipulation of the scores is to make all Heathrow's airlines appear, on average, an extra 45% quieter and cleaner than their performance actually merits, and some of the worst airlines are shown as more than twice as quiet and clean as they really are. In other words it's a win-win for everyone, well for the airport and the airlines, at least.
Presumably we'll get used to more airlines showing meteoric quarter-on-quarter jumps in position, until we get to the point where all 50 airlines occupy the Number One slot.
So that's all good, then.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Southampton
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These "terminals" are moving faster than the aircraft, can I suggest a location at Gatwick
I assume T2 build out and T2B are still planned? The Cathedral hangar is expected to come down in the next few years.
Thread Starter
Skip quotes
Sayeth the NIMBY......You, like I, chose to live there.
I had no choice but to live within a certain distance of employment, something not applicable these days.
Then it was before T4 (no further expansion) then T5 (no further expansion).
How will a A380 or 777ER travel to the start of the R3 from T4 or will it just be
"sorry, need to use R3 and another runway in mixed mode" with no noise respite
Sayeth the NIMBY......You, like I, chose to live there.
I had no choice but to live within a certain distance of employment, something not applicable these days.
Then it was before T4 (no further expansion) then T5 (no further expansion).
How will a A380 or 777ER travel to the start of the R3 from T4 or will it just be
"sorry, need to use R3 and another runway in mixed mode" with no noise respite
Thread Starter
Fresh from its recent failure to persuade the world that airlines fly up to twice as quiet and clean as they actually are, Heathrow's latest environmental initiative appears to involve claiming that aircraft aren't really there at all.
Here's a recent weekday morning snapshot with a typical 9 inbounds over Greater London (6am to 7am is the busiest part of the day for arrivals, when both runways are normally used to accommodate landing traffic).
First, FlightRadar24's view:
And Heathrow's version of events from its WebTrak system:
Here's a recent weekday morning snapshot with a typical 9 inbounds over Greater London (6am to 7am is the busiest part of the day for arrivals, when both runways are normally used to accommodate landing traffic).
First, FlightRadar24's view:
And Heathrow's version of events from its WebTrak system:
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Govt re-open R3 consulation -
The Department for Transport (DfT) published a series of new reports on the environmental impact of expanding the west London airport.
It also revealed that London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 if there is no expansion.
The consultation initially closed in May, but will now be reopened until December. The DfT insisted it is "on track" to publish final proposals for expansion in the first half of 2018, ahead of a vote in Parliament. Among the series of new reports are an updated noise analysis and a new air quality plan.
The government said higher demand for flights also meant the capital's five airports would hit full capacity six years sooner than expected. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the case for building a third runway at Heathrow was "as strong as ever". London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 according to the DfT If the scheme is approved by MPs, Heathrow will submit a planning application and consult with local communities on detailed proposals.
The airport hopes to begin construction of the new runway in early 2021, with it being completed by the end of 2025. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of campaign group the Aviation Environment Federation, claimed the "scale of this re-consultation" shows that the government's case for Heathrow expansion is "unconvincing".
The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway.
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."
Today's "Times" says the documents show Gatwick would bring more financial benefits to passengers and the environemental report backs Gatwick with LHR risks delaying or worsening compliance with limit values"
The Department for Transport (DfT) published a series of new reports on the environmental impact of expanding the west London airport.
It also revealed that London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 if there is no expansion.
The consultation initially closed in May, but will now be reopened until December. The DfT insisted it is "on track" to publish final proposals for expansion in the first half of 2018, ahead of a vote in Parliament. Among the series of new reports are an updated noise analysis and a new air quality plan.
The government said higher demand for flights also meant the capital's five airports would hit full capacity six years sooner than expected. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the case for building a third runway at Heathrow was "as strong as ever". London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 according to the DfT If the scheme is approved by MPs, Heathrow will submit a planning application and consult with local communities on detailed proposals.
The airport hopes to begin construction of the new runway in early 2021, with it being completed by the end of 2025. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of campaign group the Aviation Environment Federation, claimed the "scale of this re-consultation" shows that the government's case for Heathrow expansion is "unconvincing".
The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway.
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."
Today's "Times" says the documents show Gatwick would bring more financial benefits to passengers and the environemental report backs Gatwick with LHR risks delaying or worsening compliance with limit values"
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the original figures were correct there is no reason to reopen the consultation.
If they were wrong "Why were they wrong".
Where is Davies who was hansomely paid for producing all the data which would allow the cabinet to offer a decison ?
This smacks of "Yes Minister" bull and bluster and no doubt a softening up exercise before the decison is slammed into reverse by pulling Gatwick out of the hat!
Grayling really is a liability and is only still in place as it is too politically challenging for May to sack him. He is the worst Transport Secretary this country has ever seen and that is saying something in a catalogue festooned with buffoons.
If they were wrong "Why were they wrong".
Where is Davies who was hansomely paid for producing all the data which would allow the cabinet to offer a decison ?
This smacks of "Yes Minister" bull and bluster and no doubt a softening up exercise before the decison is slammed into reverse by pulling Gatwick out of the hat!
Grayling really is a liability and is only still in place as it is too politically challenging for May to sack him. He is the worst Transport Secretary this country has ever seen and that is saying something in a catalogue festooned with buffoons.
Last edited by Navpi; 25th Oct 2017 at 10:57.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today's "Times" says the documents show Gatwick would bring more financial benefits to passengers and the environemental report backs Gatwick with LHR risks delaying or worsening compliance with limit values"
Thread Starter
But at least the guy is consistent - he was also the worst ever Justice Secretary, though Liz Truss made a valiant effort to match him.
Thread Starter