|
....but Labour doesn't rely on logical argument when it comes to any other of its policies.
|
Originally Posted by inOban
(Post 9871811)
Remember that the air quality issues are mainly caused by motor vehicles, not planes.
|
Which they're trying to mitigate by discouraging the use of private cars to Heathrow. I hope this will come down to UNITE pressuring Corbyn to put jobs before student politics, reminding him it was a Labour gov that approved this only for Cameron to stop it again.
|
A Labour Govt run by Corbyn's old mates Tony Bliar and Big Gordo...
oh yes - I'm sure that'll convince him......................... |
Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame.
To return the airport, good to see this eventhough it will make no diff. BA attacks Border Force for 'dreadful' delays - BBC News |
|
"Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame."
True but suggesting, as Skipness did, that mentioning them to the Sainted Jeremy will get him to back R3 is.... mistaken IMHO. He's viscerally against ANYTHING & EVERYTHING the two muppets were behind |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9872853)
Presumably if the ePassport gates worked as originally intended, they could be left operating 24 hours a day, with only a token number of Border Force personnel required to be on hand to deal with poor souls like me who have a passport with a duff chip. :O
And then the roaming Border Security agent has to direct you back into another queue... (It's probably not very PC of me to say this, but same Border Security agent is quite often not of these parishes...) |
I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support.
As for "not of this parish", was flying out of LHR T5 a few weeks back when a Somali Muslim lady in head to foot black coverings walked past me in the queue and discreetly took a small package proferred to her by one of the HAL asian security staff who was about to go through the arch to go airside. Now they say "report anything suspicious" and I was actually about to ask what they were up to. On closer inspection, the muslim lady had a lanyard, so "staff" but not in uniform. Indeed exempt from uniform I think as she was then directing the queue of angol saxon post-Christian Europeans to keep us all safe from Islamist terror. She was even wearing black leather gloves...... |
TBH she's probably a damn sight better at spotting a wrong 'un than you would be - on the other hand I'm sure you can spot someone wearing the wrong regimental tie at the Golf Club that she might miss....................
|
A few questions
Does a direct LHr to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb? How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ? How will lack of long haul flights and destinations affect this country's ability to trade after Brexit. Surely the muppet show we have for a cabinet should 100% pro. How many more runways will AMS FRA CDG have built by the time LHR 3 or an alternative is built How many current Prune members will be still alive when this saga ends |
Heathrow Harry, disagree. Never played golf so shows you that judging people you've never clapped eyes on might not be your forte. In all seriousness given the stated wish of ISIS to recruit insiders, I genuinely believe hiring devout muslims who refuse to even adhere to the uniform is in any way smart
|
A jest dear boy, a jest ........
And not all security or customs are in uniform anyway - I had a meeting last week with a senior Police Offcier who was on duty but in civis.................. TBH the best people to spot a rat are those who used to be rats....... or are close enough to know. A trotskyite can spot a communist at 400 yards (and vice versa) whereas to you or I they may well look like members of the Labour Party. |
Originally Posted by pax britanica
(Post 9873583)
Does a direct LHR to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb?
Landing at, say, Leeds on the way from LHR to Edinburgh is clearly going to burn more fuel than flying direct. But flying non-stop from UK to Australia, as QF will do next year, burns more fuel than stopping enroute because of the need to depart heavy and tanker many tonnes of fuel over several thousand miles, instead of picking half of it up en route. Even allowing for the extra takeoff and landing, you still burn less if you stop halfway and fly lighter. |
Dave - didn't they talk about IF Rrefuelling at some point in the past?.........
|
Qantas ran an April Fool's spoof ad many years ago featuring non-stop UK/Australia 747 flights made possible by in-flight refuelling.
|
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L
(Post 9871998)
That will be ... and of course the tankers fuelling the aircraft.
|
WHBM
I'm pleased that someone actually corrected that schoolboy error, I was going to comment on that myself! |
Originally Posted by WHBM
(Post 9874369)
You are aware, of course, that Heathrow fuel is delivered by pipeline, and through a stand hydrant system ?
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9f411dd7e6...ork-j913f8.jpg |
Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion Quote: Labour leaders could vote against allowing a third runway to be built at Heathrow due to environmental concerns about pollution. The government wants to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but a final vote will not be taken in the House of Commons until 2018. Labour has acknowledged the need for extra runway capacity in the south-east but has raised questions about the potential pollution and reduction in air quality created by Heathrow expansion. Party sources have told the Financial Times that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is likely to vote against Heathrow expansion. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is also an opponent of a third runway. One Labour source told the FT: "It has to pass our tests and no one here expects that to be likely”; while another said: “If the vote is any time soon there is no way we would back it, mainly on the basis of air quality, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon." Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion | Buying Business Travel Same with brexit. "Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame." True but suggesting, as Skipness did, that mentioning them to the Sainted Jeremy will get him to back R3 is.... mistaken IMHO. He's viscerally against ANYTHING & EVERYTHING the two muppets were behind I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support. How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ? |
and neither will Heathrow R3 frank.................
|
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randall_(British_politician)
This chap has just been appointed senior advisor! |
My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky?
|
09s or 27s ?
|
27R in each case.
|
Qantas
Qantas will re-route its daily Sydney-London A380 service via Singapore rather than Dubai |
Diesels etc
WHBM & Canberra97 I except my error and whilst standing in the naughty corner (on leave) found that cargo, catering vehicles are also disguising diesel engines, and those tugs that tow or push back aircraft.:ooh:
DRUK thanks for the photo. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9831492)
For several years, Heathrow has published a quarterly league table as part of its FlyQuiet programme showing which airlines perform best on several noise metrics, although it has never disclosed exactly how the rankings are worked out. BA Short Haul always manages to come top of the table. :O
This year Heathrow has commendably not only added two more emissions-related metrics (hence now "Fly Quiet & Clean"), but has also revealed for the first time the process used to derive the overall league table positions, based on the rankings for each individual metric. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have grasped how its own methodology works, and as a result has made a complete dog's breakfast of calculating the league table positions and points. BA Short Haul (as usual) is shown as top, but should be down in fifth place based on its individual metric rankings (it's near the bottom on one of the emissions metrics). Some airlines (for example PK, TK, LY) get more than twice as many points as their performance actually merits and CX gets a 14-place hike up the table from where it should be. Carriers that should be tied on points based on their metric rankings (e.g. American and Aegean) finish up to 9 places apart in the league table. Expect the dodgy results to be pulled and correct ones substituted pretty soon, but in the meantime they can be viewed here: The League Table Q1 2017 However the message has clearly struck home - Heathrow published the stats for Q2 in mid-August, but this time around they are password-protected, thereby hiding them from public scrutiny, which completely negates the stated aim of Fly Quiet & Clean that "The 50 busiest airlines at Heathrow will now be publicly ranked on their work to reduce emissions and noise in their operations". The League Table Q2 2017 |
Quote: How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ? Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM. and neither will Heathrow R3 frank................. The government decided that Heathrow was full in 1977. The charter and IT business had already been pushed out to Luton, and new airlines were pushed out to Gatwick. Carriers like BUA and British Caledonian were banned from Heathrow (under the "second force" policy) as were all USA carriers except Pan Am and TWA thanks to the UK/USA Bermuda agreement. These days, Gatwick still acts as a waiting room for new carriers wishing to acquire Heathrow slots. It has taken 40 years to NOT build another parallel rwy at Heathrow. On that basis, how long do you think it would take to build an airport bigger than Heathrow and all the accompanying infrastructure and urbanisation at a Thames estuary site in the middle of nowhere? 200 years, 300 years? Time to get real: even if Boris Island was going to be built, Heathrow would obviously STILL need a third and fourth parallel rwy in the interim, as it would be a very long interim and the existing situation at Heathrow is untenable. Having finally achieved a four rwy Heathrow, there would be no appetite to close it, and without its closure Boris Island is sunk. The Boris Island thread is full of other reasons why this airport will never be built, so to reiterate, the statement that "Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM" is accurate and fact. The statement that "neither will Heathrow R3 frank" is conjecture, although the balance of probability may support that statement. |
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John...ish_politician) This chap has just been appointed senior advisor! My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky? |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9892857)
Well two months on and it would seem my optimism was misplaced - Heathrow continues to publish those dodgy Q1 stats and has clearly decided to brazen it out, maintaining disingenuously that it's not aware of any issues with the data, even though any bright GCSE Maths student could spot the flaky arithmetic a mile off.
Heathrow denies that it's mathematically challenged, and instead rather strangely maintains that nobody could possibly derive the Fly Quiet and Clean scores just based on the airlines' relative performance for each of the seven weighted metrics (despite the FQC website saying that that's exactly how the scoring does work). Instead, it says, there are various fudge factors ("inputs"), which it won't divulge, but which are applied to the scores obtained from the airlines' relative performance, and have the happy effect of inflating those scores by an average of about 45%. Even worse, these increases aren't applied uniformly (some airlines have their scores more than doubled), which of course then alters the relative league table rankings. Fortuitously, that has the effect of propelling BA from the Number 5 slot that its performance actually merits to its customary slot at the top of the table, so it can't be all bad. Unless you work for Aer Lingus, deprived of the Number 1 slot it deserves, or unfortunate carriers like SriLankan or Icelandair, who get shunted nearly 20 places down the table from where they should rightfully be. A cynic might think that the more an airline pays in landing fees, the better its chances of being classified as quiet and clean. :O |
Looks like we may be making progress, of a sort.
Heathrow has removed the references to the "Q2 2017 biggest climbers" that were based on the flawed Q1 stats and the still unpublished Q2 results (the latter are, reportedly, due to be unveiled this week). Whether that's a precursor to a wholesale overhaul of the published Q1 scores remains to be seen, but it's an encouraging indication that Heathrow has been investing in new batteries for its calculators. |
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 9904196)
Looks like we may be making progress, of a sort.
Q2 results were published today, with Delta convincingly meriting the Number One slot, due largely to being best performer for CDAs and track-keeping (the two highest-weighted metrics), joint highest-rated for Night Quota observance (with zero violations) and in the 20 best carriers for all but one of the other metrics. Sadly, Heathrow's flaky maths has relegated DL to 7th place in the standings, for reasons known only to the number-crunchers there. Other airlines featuring in the "we wuz robbed" stakes include Qantas, way down in 17th place despite its performance meriting the Number Three slot and Malaysian, unfairly shoved 11 places down from its rightful place in the Top Five just above Aer Lingus (who bizarrely get awarded an undeserved first place, perhaps to compensate for being robbed of it last time around). You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has. :O |
perhaps a reference to the BBC Radio 4 "More or Less" would bring out the figure fiddlers?
|
Or send the stats to Donald, to add to his collection of Alternative Facts. :O
Aside from the creative accounting, the headlines accompanying the results suggest that Heathrow may have a less-than-perfect grasp of what's happening on its own runways: "Air India has climbed an astounding 37 places to place 5th this quarter, in part because of their use of Boeing Dreamliners at Heathrow, an aircraft that has 20-25% fewer C02 [sic] emissions and a smaller noise effect than the airplanes [sic] it replaces" In fact the airline hasn't actually improved its ranking at all on any of the noise or emissions metrics (according to Heathrow's own figures). AI's league table hike is solely attributable to a much better ranking for track-keeping (it was in bottom place for the previous quarter) and a modest improvement for the Night Quota metric - neither of which have anything to do with the aircraft type being used. |
The mystery deepens still further, were that possible ...
The results that rank "the 50 busiest airlines operating at Heathrow from April to June this year" strangely omit any details for Icelandair, MEA and Egyptair, all of whom maintained two daily flights throughout those three months. And yet the likes of Croatian (9 flights per week) and China Southern (a single daily flight up to the beginning of June) are included. Go figure, as our American cousins say. |
Update:
Latest indications suggest that Heathrow finally realises that it has egg on its face as a result of its flaky arithmetic, but has dug itself in a hole so deep that it's struggling to find a face-saving way of climbing out. Meanwhile, with an irony that won't be lost on regular PPRuNers, an airline whose name can't be mentioned on here and which only manages 35th place (out of 50) for both its NOx emissions and track-keeping performance, thereby forfeiting 248 of the 357 points available for those two metrics, nevertheless gets awarded an aggregate score of 900 out of 1,000. I wish my accountant could be that creative. :O |
Silly not to 'fess up TBh - you just make yourself a sitting target in front of any judge/committee/ interviewer and it knocks your credibility sideways
|
"Heathrow" + "credibility" <Ahem> :p
|
Originally Posted by Heathrow Harry
(Post 9915166)
Silly not to 'fess up TBh - you just make yourself a sitting target in front of any judge/committee/ interviewer and it knocks your credibility sideways
It's hard to tell whether we're seeing an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, or just plain old-fashioned hubris on the part of Heathrow. Maybe a bit of both. Either way, reacting by burying its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away isn't the kind of mature response one expects from a multi-billion pound company that wants the world to believe it's an environmentally responsible neighbour. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 23:46. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.