There’s a whole thread.

https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airp...rt-london.html

Several, in fact.

Including one started by the poster who is asking the question:

PPRuNe: Another runway at Heathrow

Third runway at Heathrow
 

Have been reading the report which is many pages long. Am interested in readers views on steeper approaches using a 3.2 degree glideslope to reduce noise. It doesnt seem very much to me and can it be used in some form of instrument approach ?

The problem with a steeper glide path is that depending on the aircraft type, conditions, and - quite frankly - the pilot's energy management skills, it can often be more difficult to control the speed of the aircraft, something which is of particular importance to Heathrow and Gatwick arrivals.

It would almost certainly result in more speed brake on approach, more early gear extension and, as a result, more noise. Counterproductive.

HAL are lauding the CDA as a success. On the small Airbus gear is down later than 6 miles.
On the heavies and super heavies they stick to the norm.

On the contrary, it appears to be almost twice as steep as a 3° approach :O


https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...ic_468x269.png

Slightly steeper approach trial update

In theory the ILS/MLS could have been adjusted to the steeper angle, but that would have required all landing traffic to make use of it. Instead, a 3.2° RNAV approach was created for use by the airlines participating in the trial.

I wonder if the folks whose S/H rotations are being canx this week, have considered the diff if we had R3 ... :hmm:

[I'll get my hat] {AND coat as it's dashed parky today}

PAXBOY
BA always cancel short haul first, what ever the reason. A bus up the M6 to MAN after a long haul flight is one of the reasons I no longer use BA or LHR. I think other northern based FF may also have a similar view. -6c up here today but still got out to office,though a bit lonely as gritters in this part of West Yorkshire appear to be a bit hens teeth like today, 4x4 very useful for going up hill even if just a big toboggan going down if not careful !

Though not exclusively - according to thebasource.com, yesterday's cancellations also included LAX and JFK rotations.

But it's true that most of the canx were short-haul, affecting the following LHR routes:

ABZ, AMS, ARN, BRU, BSL, CDG, CPH, DME, DUB, DUS, EDI, FRA, GLA, GVA, HAM, LBA, LIN, MAD, MAN, MUC, NCL, OSL, TLS, TXL and ZRH

Incorrect - the ILS could not have been adjusted as the glide slope would physically need to be moved to accommodate the extra angle. Some aircraft utilising LHR at the time of the initial trial were also not certified to fly above a 3.15 angle. You are also unable to offer CATIII approaches over 3.15 so resilience would take a hit. The RNAV was the best option and allowed HAL to keep a CATIII approach in place for resilience

Er, yes - that's why I said "in theory", with the caveat that it wouldn't have been practicable for a variety of reasons. :O

Anything is possible "in theory" :-)

Clapham
 

In Clapham they have more to worry about the noise of emergency vehicles darting around 24/7, and if they looked up they take there eye of the ball watching out for robbers on scooters and rogue cyclists

https://amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/ryanair-boss-attacks-heathrow-expansion-cost-36675472.html?__twitter_impression=true

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/uk-australia-non-stop-flight-qantas-airlines-16-hours-double-price-travel-a7704616.html?amp&__twitter_impression=true

It's rather like the pic that Heathrow are putting out to give the impression that plane emissions don't affect anywhere outside the airport boundary


https://t.co/lNJRVyP948
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX60nmZX4AA66BS.jpghttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/DX60nmZX4AA66BS.jpghttp://

In fig 2 above, which particular aircraft does that departure.Half the runway used and a steep climb on full power? If it is westbound what are all those large buildings to the west?

New York.................

An A320 would be around 1500 ft crossing the fenceline on climbout according to fr24.
The buildings just represent buildings, the larger buildings to the west would be Slough.

Hainan will launch trice weekly Changsha service with B788 eff. 23rd March

Tianjin Airlines (plans) to launch twice weekly Tianjin-Xian-LHR service with A332 eff. 7th May

Any ideas as to where the slots have come from?

Skip
Fig 2 is fake material, common practice, so a lumbering A380, 747, and 777ULR
would be where?:rolleyes:

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/13/cost-heathrow-third-runway-mps-justine-greening-vince-cable?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true

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.

Softening up exercise for a No ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43405684

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.

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!

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.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/b...tors-k9l0kd9j9

At least corporation tax is ringfenced.

.... As is the Times website, unless you feel you want to donate to Rupert's retirement fund.

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. :uhoh:

A little snippet from Ruperts ring fence

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.

This is standard stuff in regulated industries. You try and present your costs as HIGH as possible, as the regulator is looking to give you a fixed percentage return on your asset. Reduce the margin by excessive costs and they will let you get back up to the agreed amount by increasing regulated income like landing fees. The regulator should be alert and auditing for this.

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.

Crossrail was always about improving capacity between Paddington & Liverpool street with added feeders east and west

Lhr only came into it when HS 3 was scrapped IIRC

This is true. It was supposed to massively improve capacity for commuters in West London but has now morphed into a Heathrow feeder service. The impact on journeys will be dramatic as suggested by TFL. Can you imagine passengers getting on with 2 pieces of hand luggage each .

It will halve the avaliable f'cast capacity instantly.

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

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.

It will never be built.