Heathrow-2
Fit like min?
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ...
Posts: 2,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On that basis, almost every accident only just happens. Spearing an aeroplane into the ground barely penetrates by more than a few metres, so even that wouldn't crash "by much to be fair" either!
Thank goodness the Tenerife collision only happened by a few metres - imagine how badly that could have turned out if they had really hit big time...
Thank goodness the Tenerife collision only happened by a few metres - imagine how badly that could have turned out if they had really hit big time...
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Canada
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the early 70's LHR to ABZ and INV were Viscount operated. In about 1976 Aberdeen services were operated by Trident 1E's, formerly from Northeast Airlines. These types, of which there were only 3 in the whole BA Trident fleet were much more suitable for the short runway at Aberdeen than the standard Trident 1C. The Boeing 737-200 then took over in early 80's followed by B737-400 in the 90's. As far as I can recall, LHR-INV continued with Viscounts until the closure of most UK and Ireland routes in about 1982 when Dan Air took on the route. Following their acquisition by BA, B737-400 were introduced until BA stopped the route altogether.
Last edited by canuck slf; 25th Feb 2019 at 04:23. Reason: Clarify Trident was LHR-ABZ
Thread Starter
Gosh, what have I started ? 
When I posted that photo of bogged-down Zulu Uniform to illustrate that Tridents were in common use on LHR/ABZ, I didn't expect it would spark off a willy-waving war about how every incident is a near-disaster.
Getting back on topic, given that this is the LHR thread, we can expect the next instalment of Heathrow's Booker Fiction Prize submission (aka the Fly Quiet statistics) in the next week or so.
Watch this space ...
When I posted that photo of bogged-down Zulu Uniform to illustrate that Tridents were in common use on LHR/ABZ, I didn't expect it would spark off a willy-waving war about how every incident is a near-disaster.
Getting back on topic, given that this is the LHR thread, we can expect the next instalment of Heathrow's Booker Fiction Prize submission (aka the Fly Quiet statistics) in the next week or so.
Watch this space ...
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes: https://www.nats.aero/tbs
And recategorisation of wake vortex minima which is a global initiative.
FF
Thread Starter
Getting back on topic, given that this is the LHR thread, we can expect the next instalment of Heathrow's Booker Fiction Prize submission (aka the Fly Quiet statistics) in the next week or so.
Paxing All Over The World
Heathrow inks new deal with airlines to promote higher Load Factors, subject to the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) approval, will be valid through the end of 2021.
ch Aviation
I am curious about this, as every single carrier wants to operate to the highest load factors - why do they need "hundreds of millions of pounds" worth of incentives ?
As for reducing charges to the carriers, I'll wait for the pigs to be launched off 27L...
01.03.2019 - 18:18 UTC
The new agreement, which the airport operator called "a landmark deal", has been under negotiations for the past several months. The deal includes "hundreds of millions of pounds" worth of incentives for the airlines to boost their load factors on existing flights.
"Airlines at Heathrow currently operate with average load factors below the IATA global average. If airlines at Heathrow reached global averages for filling aircraft there is an opportunity to reduce passenger charges by 10-20% against what they might otherwise be, in addition to helping Heathrow meet the Government’s affordability target for expansion," the airport operator said.
The new agreement, which the airport operator called "a landmark deal", has been under negotiations for the past several months. The deal includes "hundreds of millions of pounds" worth of incentives for the airlines to boost their load factors on existing flights.
"Airlines at Heathrow currently operate with average load factors below the IATA global average. If airlines at Heathrow reached global averages for filling aircraft there is an opportunity to reduce passenger charges by 10-20% against what they might otherwise be, in addition to helping Heathrow meet the Government’s affordability target for expansion," the airport operator said.
I am curious about this, as every single carrier wants to operate to the highest load factors - why do they need "hundreds of millions of pounds" worth of incentives ?
As for reducing charges to the carriers, I'll wait for the pigs to be launched off 27L...
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: London
Posts: 835
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paxman,
No they don’t and particularly at Heathrow where carriers are driven by the frequency argument and yield potential in the front cabins in the main.
This leads to the regular over capacity in the back of the bus on certain routes, and price dumping of the economy seats in the market at certain times.
No they don’t and particularly at Heathrow where carriers are driven by the frequency argument and yield potential in the front cabins in the main.
This leads to the regular over capacity in the back of the bus on certain routes, and price dumping of the economy seats in the market at certain times.
Paxman,
No they don’t and particularly at Heathrow where carriers are driven by the frequency argument and yield potential in the front cabins in the main.
This leads to the regular over capacity in the back of the bus on certain routes, and price dumping of the economy seats in the market at certain times.
No they don’t and particularly at Heathrow where carriers are driven by the frequency argument and yield potential in the front cabins in the main.
This leads to the regular over capacity in the back of the bus on certain routes, and price dumping of the economy seats in the market at certain times.
Only nine off track on BA short haul?
Following detailed analysis with British Airways and NATS, we are aware that not all instances of aircraft that are off-track for reasons outside of the airlines control, are removed from the calculation. Over the coming months we will be working to address this issue.
ie Fix the figures
Following detailed analysis with British Airways and NATS, we are aware that not all instances of aircraft that are off-track for reasons outside of the airlines control, are removed from the calculation. Over the coming months we will be working to address this issue.
ie Fix the figures
Thread Starter
Coincidentally, I wrote yesterday to Heathrow's CEO challenging him to say how many Fly Quiet & Green points were awarded to each airline for track-keeping and the other six FQG metrics, since those points supposedly add up to the ludicrous aggregate scores that LHR publishes.
I'll report back on the response (if any).
I'll report back on the response (if any).
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: LHR/EGLL
Age: 45
Posts: 4,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Coincidentally, I wrote yesterday to Heathrow's CEO challenging him to say how many Fly Quiet & Green points were awarded to each airline for track-keeping and the other six FQG metrics, since those points supposedly add up to the ludicrous aggregate scores that LHR publishes.
I'll report back on the response (if any).
I'll report back on the response (if any).
But wait - apparently those published rules aren't actually how the scheme works at all (which any GCSE Maths student could have told us). I'm told that the "How We Calculate" page on the website isn't in fact how they calculate, but is apparently a dumbed-down version aimed at Joe Public, who isn't deemed bright enough to understand the various fudge factors that go into producing the final rose-tinted rankings.
So that's all good then.
Incidentally, the Q4 2018 results have just emerged from their password-protection. I haven't yet had time to analyse them, but initial indications are that Heathrow has tweaked the fudge factor to inflate the scores by around 55% instead of the customary 40% or so.
Watch this space.
Thread Starter
Incidentally, the Q4 2018 results have just emerged from their password-protection. I haven't yet had time to analyse them, but initial indications are that Heathrow has tweaked the fudge factor to inflate the scores by around 55% instead of the customary 40% or so.
Watch this space.
Watch this space.
This time around, even a cursory glance at the results is sufficient to illustrate how absurd they are - instead of giving the airlines an average score of around 750 out of 1000, as with previous quarters' results (already grossly inflated), Heathrow has hiked the average score by over 8% to 813 points.
Readers will recall that, under the published rules of the scheme, the expected average (mean and median) score should be around 500 (slightly more if there are tied places for any of the metrics, for example 522 points for the Q4 results).
Not content with inflating the scores even more than usual, Heathrow has also inexplicably excluded 5 of its 50 busiest airlines from the results.
We will never know how China Southern, El Al, Korean Air, Kuwait Airways or Pakistan International Airlines are judged to have performed, because Egyptair short/longhaul, Icelandair (ditto) and MEA longhaul (all with fewer flights than any of the above) have been substituted instead. In fact El Al and China Southern had over three times as many flights as MEA longhaul during Q4.
The "league table" ranking, in descending order of points awarded by Heathrow, includes the bizarre sequence: 9th, 10th, 13th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 27th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 24th, 27th, 28th.
A more detailed look at the Q4 table shows:
a) Individual airline scores are inflated by between 17% and 240%, with the poorest performing carriers receiving the biggest unjustified increase in their score. The 544 points score awarded by Heathrow to MEA shorthaul is over 380 points more than the airline actually merits based on its performance and Heathrow's rules.
b) 48 out of the 50 airlines in Heathrow's table are awarded more than the correctly calculated average (based on Heathrow's data and methodology) of 522.
c) Turkish Airlines longhaul and Jet Airways are given an unexplained hike up the table, each by 15 places, compared to the positions that their performance merits.
d) Among the airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter's published results include Icelandair shorthaul, relegated 20 places from its rightful position. Turkish Airlines shorthaul, despite meriting 503 points by Heathrow's own methodology, putting it just above Air Malta, bizarrely ends up ranked 21 places below the Maltese carrier.
e) "RAG" (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example Thai Airways and TAP, ranked 44th and 45th, respectively, by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an "Amber" for that category while Scandinavian, ranked 34th for that metric by Heathrow, gets a "Red".
f) For the second successive quarter, 180 flights by Finnair's A330 and A350 fleets (out of an airline total of 905) appear not to have been taken into account in calculating the results, with only its narrow-body A320 family flights having been counted.