Heathrow-2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
The way everyone is shouted at to wait on the platform while the “SECURITY CHECK” is performed is just a joke.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: leeds
Age: 77
Posts: 287
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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
A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence
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.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will halve the avaliable f'cast capacity instantly.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Eas Anglia
Age: 64
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.