PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Airlines, Airports & Routes (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes-85/)
-   -   Heathrow-2 (https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599818-heathrow-2-a.html)

DaveReidUK 7th Feb 2018 19:06


Originally Posted by Trinity 09L (Post 10045232)
They are showing runway use, with the centre runway on mixed ops only to avoid conflict.

I think it's the other way round, unless there has been a recent change of plan.

The centre runway would be the only one that can't operate in mixed-mode, for safety reasons (because of the missed approach procedure).

The plan is that, at any given time, one of the two outer runways would be used in mixed-mode, with the other two used in segregated mode - one handling arrivals and the other departures.

Trinity 09L 8th Feb 2018 08:24

Apologies, they are not using mixed mode on centre runway. However on their four mode plan it shows that 75% of landings on the same runway, twice on parallel runways, likewise for departures. This appears on page 32 of HAL Our approach to Noise document.



Originally Posted by Trinity 09L (Post 10045204)
HAL have told me they’re paying for the M25 diversion,tunnel & runway on top. As they do not know the length of R3 anything can happen :ugh:

HAL are paying for M25 etc.

DaveReidUK 8th Feb 2018 11:29

Yes, that's correct. Communities under the 09R/27L approaches would see their respite drop from 50% to 25%. The latter figure would also apply to those under the R3 approach.

The often-quoted figure of "33% respite" is a fairly meaningless average of the 50% respite that those under the 09L/27R approach would experience (as at present) and the 25% for the two outer runways.

Fairdealfrank 10th Feb 2018 01:46


One of the main environmental issues with LHR is the pollution caused by LGVs queuing at the cargo terminal.
They'll all be electric by the time a new rwy opens. Hell will also have frozen over by then, but will the UK will still be "transitioning" out of the EU?


I've said before - R3 will not be built. Not least of all, it's now waaay too late. The traffic has moved elsewhere and the traffic that would move in would not be enough. BUT if we could clear the stacks? That would be a huge environmental benefit.
Yes you have, many many times, and you may be right, but you cannot have it both ways. If you don't want stacks, and by implication queues on the ground, you have to have another rwy, because there will never be a reduction in movements. Pity the environmentalists don't understand this.


Heathrow Airport's control of building costs 'abysmal' - BBC News

Heathrow Airport has a "abysmal" record of controlling building costs said the boss of British Airways-owner IAG.

Willie Walsh told the BBC that other companies should be allowed to design and build any new terminals at Heathrow. Heathrow said it did not believe such a model was appropriate.
The government is due to publish final proposals for a third runway at Heathrow in the next few months. MPs will then vote on those plans. Mr Walsh called for an end to Heathrow airport's "monopoly" on its terminals. "Heathrow Airport Limited run an airport - they're not the best at designing or building the facilities," he said. "We believe that should be left to others who are much better, and who would have a greater focus on cost control."

Mr Walsh does not think that existing terminals should be sold off, but rather that competitors should be allowed to submit proposals for developing, designing and building new terminal facilities. "It's not rocket science, there are plenty of people who have been involved in this type of construction in other areas who would be interested," he said. "We know because we've been approached by many of them, who believe that they could do this in a much more efficient way than Heathrow."

Mr Walsh's call is the latest salvo in his ongoing war of words with Heathrow, which is ultimately owned by Spanish firm Ferrovial. IAG, which owns Iberia and Aer Lingus as well as BA, controls just over half the landing slots at Heathrow - Europe's busiest airport. Mr Walsh long been a vocal critic of the fees imposed on airlines by Heathrow, which stand at about £22 per passenger.

IAG said the proposed expansion of the airport could allow independent companies to build and operate commercial facilities at the airport, including terminals. "Heathrow's had it too good for too long and the government must confirm the Civil Aviation Authority's powers to introduce this type of competition," Mr Walsh said.

A spokesperson said Heathrow wanted to ensure competition and choice between airlines at the airport: "Expansion will open up opportunities for IAG, easyJet, flybe, Virgin and dozens of international airlines with whom we are working closely to deliver expansion at close to current charges." Heathrow chief executive John Holland-Kaye is due to give evidence to MPs on the Transport Select Committee on Monday afternoon.

The third runway was due to cost almost £17bn, but Heathrow argued that it could complete the project for £14bn. Airlines fear that the airport will increase landing charges to help pay for the third runway. IAG has threatened to call for a price cap on landing charges if they do not fall after the new runway is finished. "With more passengers and the introduction of internal competition, the airport's charges should go down," Mr Walsh said. "If they remain at current levels we, along with other airlines, support a price cap to ensure they cannot rise and have written to the Transport Select Committee to highlight this."
Willie's problem is that IAG has nowhere else to go. In the end he'll have to suck it up.


Perhaps most outrageous of all, Flybe, which according to LHR's methodology loses over 100 points each for both its CDA adherence and its track-keeping performance, nevertheless gets propelled into first place after being awarded 930 points out of a possible 1000!
Oh very good!! Excellent pun, BE is not using jet aircraft to/from LHR.

DaveReidUK 10th Feb 2018 09:37


Originally Posted by Fairdealfrank (Post 10047985)
Oh very good!! Excellent pun

I wish I could say it had been intentional. :O


BE is not using jet aircraft to/from LHR.
Yes, I think we're all aware of that.

Interestingly, despite using turboprops Flybe only rank 10th best for Noise Quota used per seat per movement, because of course the Q400 (Dash 8) only has 78 seats.

WHBM 10th Feb 2018 12:11

As one who particularly notices their droning "Q"400s as they climb out over Berkshire/Bucks, let us not conflate quietness with turboprops. The Q400, with those big paddle-blade props, is anyway the noisiest of all current turboprops.

DaveReidUK 10th Feb 2018 16:08

For noise Quota Count purposes, the Q400 sits in between early (PW124) and later (PW127) ATR-72s. The Dash-8 is exempted on departure (< 84 EPNdB, so zero noise quota used) but not on arrival, whereas newer ATRs are exempted on both arrival and departure and older ones on neither.

If only Flybe operated shiny new ATRs, they would automatically be top of the rankings. :O

PAXboy 10th Feb 2018 20:23

Fairdealfrank

Yes you have, many many times, and you may be right, but you cannot have it both ways. If you don't want stacks, and by implication queues on the ground, you have to have another rwy, because there will never be a reduction in movements. Pity the environmentalists don't understand this.
Sorry, should have clarified my position:
  1. I have been a supporter of R3 + R4 ever since I took an interest in the problem and that was over 30 years ago.
  2. I do not think it/they will be built for reasons stated (too often!)
  3. I think that LHR should have used the idea of reducing stacks as an important point and would play many at their own game.
  4. But LHR et al avoid mentioning the stacks as they don't want to draw attention to the hideous amount of pollution and time. The carriers just up the prices to cover the cost and it gets ignored.
  5. But everything will be ignored!!
  6. Rant over.

WHBM 10th Feb 2018 20:26

Here by London City the Flybe and Luxair Q400s are the most noticeable of the turboprops. From inside the house I notice their noise on departure where I don't notice any of the other turbos (we even have the old VLM F50s back) on the same track.

For all the reference is to engine types, most of their noise comes from the prop tips.

I think that LHR should have used the idea of reducing stacks as an important point and would play many at their own game.
The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before. If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.

Skipness One Echo 11th Feb 2018 08:39

In fairness no closure of 23/05 means the central area would still be a congested mess, no new T2. That was one call that was spot on IMHO.

DaveReidUK 11th Feb 2018 08:52


Originally Posted by WHBM (Post 10048891)
The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before.

Hmmm. You do realise that T2B, and eventually T2C, are astride the old 05/23 ?


If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.
Gosh. There was I thinking that I had a dim view of the media ... :O

PAXboy 11th Feb 2018 15:37

WHBM

The real PR error was just closing their onetime third runway 23 as not required, having made its use as awkward as possible in the years before. If they had presented the whole thing as a runway "realignment" of 23 a further amount of opprobrium from the general press and public would have been neutralised.
I take SOE's point about space but, if it had been possible to relocate R3 to the correct place? Wow, what a day that would have been. Talk about PR 'spin'!

I only landed once on 23 - in a Viscount from IOM! No departures. So that was the early 80s sometime. When did it close?

DaveReidUK 11th Feb 2018 16:24

Sunday 27th October 2002. Last movement was a landing that morning by a SAA 747.

Navpi 12th Feb 2018 06:20

Would a crossing runway not reduce separation on the other runways and therefore hinder matters ?

DaveReidUK 12th Feb 2018 06:25

It's a complete red herring.

I'm waiting for some for some bright spark to suggest that Heathrow should have kept all six of its original runways open - just think how much capacity it would have with that many. :ugh:

WHBM 12th Feb 2018 10:00

Bright Spark here who remembers the layout at Chicago O'Hare, up to about 15 years ago, with a 6-runway intersecting star pattern just like Heathrow once had, and the throughput they got from it was astounding (must be others here who recall it as well). And yes, they would have all six in use together. Dim recollection they got over 100 departures an hour. Like Heathrow, they eventually ran out of ground space as more the limiting factor, and have gone for substantial expansion.

DaveReidUK 12th Feb 2018 12:37

Comparisons between O'Hare and Heathrow are meaningless.

The presence/absence of any of LHR's cross runways has never had any impact on capacity.

Barcli 14th Feb 2018 08:45

Ground incident Heathrow ? 14/2/2018
 
Some stands un-useable to to a ground incident this morning ? any info out there ?

Navpi 14th Feb 2018 09:15

Despite claims to the contrary the incident at Heathrow is causing chaos. Friend on board a Zurich have been holding take off for 2 hours and can't now get back to stand because T5 is filling up with inbounds.

Seems to be an incident between two vehicles yet many news outlets are claiming that passengers are being evacuated?

DaveReidUK 14th Feb 2018 09:18

Serious vehicle accident airside.


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:25.


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