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)

c52 22nd Mar 2018 09:16

Is there even the prospect for a safety case for the unique solution of making the Northern runway double-length?

highwideandugly 22nd Mar 2018 19:48

How about Heathrow goes 24 hours...

Limits movements over night to say 20 total movements in/out per hour..min seating of 200. with ultra quiet aircraft...Spends a few million on noise suppression ie Double glazing..
so that’s 6 hours roughly at 120 movements..

Uses dual runway ops during day...solved..everyone( nearly) happy and growth achieved for minimal cash outlay..easy eh!!

canberra97 22nd Mar 2018 19:55


Originally Posted by highwideandugly (Post 10093108)
How about Heathrow goes 24 hours...

Limits movements over night to say 20 total movements in/out per hour..min seating of 200. with ultra quiet aircraft...Spends a few million on noise suppression ie Double glazing..
so that’s 6 hours roughly at 120 movements..

Uses dual runway ops during day...solved..everyone( nearly) happy and growth achieved for minimal cash outlay..easy eh!!

With those comments you make it sound so straight forward but I'm afraid it won't happen.

DaveReidUK 22nd Mar 2018 20:37

I think that's what is termed a "lose-lose" scenario - you get at best a 10% increase in capacity instead of the 50% that the R3 advocates are seeking, while simultaneously interrupting the sleep of several million Londoners.

But apart from that, it's perfect. :O

Rutan16 22nd Mar 2018 21:02

Highwide this lets make Heathrow 24 hour mantra and that would be a simple solution is an utter red herring.

These days no one would want or choose to depart to anywhere at 3.30 am period it just ain’t happening !
It’s no longer 1973 and flying on some no mark charter to Palma or Rimini . Passenger aspirations have radically changed

Indeed few want or choose to depart at 06.30 right now!

However you do realise contrary to popular Anet and Dryed fruit myth Heathrow is already 24 hour although heavily slot constrained between 11.00 and 06.00 which as a local resident is beneficial.

There are actually around 18 slots available mostly used and available before 6am each night used by early long haul arrivals.

I will tell you the Boston/Hong Kong depending on season is the first and what ever operates it I certainly here it and it ain’t quiet at 04.40 !

Given the UK geography, long haul and inter European travel preferences frankly don’t lead to demands for departures after 11.00 or arrivals much before the current 04.40 time frame

UK isn’t the Middle East where the time frame for those transits do mean stupid o’clock operations.

We are on the edge of the Eastern Atlantic Heathrow is the largest US landing point in Europe.
Major American airports are also night restricted and those late evening departures Boston excepted always will arrive around 6 am and after.
From Asia it’s much the same for overnight flight although many from this area arrive in Europe late afternoon.

The only potential beneficiaries of any slots in the current heavily restricted time frame could be a few freighters, however boxes couldn’t care less where they enter in country - Stansted provides more than sufficient capacity for those today .

Heathrow Harry 23rd Mar 2018 08:01

If you really want the mob marching up your drive with pitchforks and blazing brands just suggest 24 hr operation

Even the pro expansion Commons Transport Committee want to reduce the number of night flights and extend the curfew.....

Navpi 23rd Mar 2018 12:05

The "Pro Expansion" Transport Committee appear to have finally seen the light.

Just issued.


Credit; The Times.


Heathrow’s third runway should be blocked unless the government introduces tough new restrictions on costs, pollution, aircraft noise and night flights, according to MPs.

The transport select committee said that safeguards designed to protect local residents and airport passengers had to be strengthened before the plans are approved.

The cross-party group ultimately supported the proposed northwest runway, concluding in a report that it was the best option for airport expansion in the southeast. However, it said that the government’s national policy statement (NPS) — the planning consent needed to pave the way for the two-mile runway — should only be passed by MPs if crucial new conditions were imposed.

SWBKCB 24th Mar 2018 16:48

Journalist criticises airport for treatment of disabled passengers - BBC News


Odd that I can travel round the Middle East and elsewhere without a hitch. Yet time and again @HeathrowAirport loses my wheelchair on arrival. Now been on an empty plane 1.5 hours after landing. Believe me, I'm as bored of writing this as you are of reading it.
Perhaps they need to sort the basics out

DaveReidUK 24th Mar 2018 19:01


Originally Posted by SWBKCB (Post 10095500)
Perhaps they need to sort the basics out

And employ some rather less arrogant spokespersons:

"We apologise unreservedly IF the service Mr Gardner received today fell short of the experience we aim to provide to our passengers."

If ????

Skipness One Echo 25th Mar 2018 03:49


I am so utterly sick of @HeathrowAirport ground staff 'losing' my wheelchair. Over 70 mins after landing back from Ethiopia I'm still stuck on an empty plane while they try to find it Just when is UK's premier airport going to stop treating disabled passengers this way?
The person running the twitter account might get a bollocking here, they may even be agency. Mr Gardner was flying Ethiopian Airlines who are handled by a third party (Menzies?). It is the handlers responsibility to get the wheelchair out of the bulk hold and up to the air-bridge in good time.
In fairness, neither of these companies are HAL. It's classic social media clusterflip, with everyone piling in. HAL's twitter is not a "spokesperson" in the traditional media sense, they tend to be young and often agency side, into managing damage to the brand. The mistake appears to be in apologising at all, they appear to have (almost) admitted being at fault for something they have no part in.

c52 25th Mar 2018 12:37

From vague memories of working for BAA I am sure that HAL require certain standards of their customers.

Heathrow Harry 25th Mar 2018 14:48

TBF HAL never say when advertising LHR

" An airport owned by HAL but you'll actually be in the hands of all sorts of third party companies most of whom we hardly know about...."

Not surprising they get it in the neck when someone else screws up

c52 25th Mar 2018 19:59

But still it would be appealing to do something nasty to these spokespeople and then apologise IF they didn't enjoy it.

KelvinD 26th Mar 2018 06:34

Skipness: It may still be HAL's responsibility. In an interview on Radio 4 yesterday morning, Gardner said the wheelchair was unloaded on time and was delivered to the air bridge. For some, unknown, reason it was then removed from there and sent to the terminal.

Navpi 8th Apr 2018 10:05

Unsure of source of source for this.
@Airportwatch

The Government’s Aviation Strategy will now not be presented to Parliament until summer 2019 despite the initial consultation in July 2017 promising the full strategy to be presented to Parliament “before the end of 2018”. The reason for the delay is unclear but campaigners say the strategy could in fact be put in jeopardy because of its reliance on Heathrow expansion – a project which has major parliamentary and legal hurdles to overcome. Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “This strategy is written on the basis that Heathrow expansion is a done deal. It is in fact very uncertain with parliamentary and legal hurdles which it will struggle to overcome. The Government seems hell-bent on expanding Heathrow, despite evidence that alternative options for growth in the sector would bring a greater benefit to regions across the UK and not just in the south east, as usual.” It has always been profoundly unsatisfactory, and illogical, for a key part of the UK aviation sector – Heathrow airport – being decided upon BEFORE the UK aviation policy for the whole sector. Rationally, it would be the other way round – aviation policy first, and then decide on whether Heathrow should expand.

.

Navpi 8th Apr 2018 10:07

Yet another delay ?

Unsure of source of source for this.
@Airportwatch are quoting but not seenecessarily any Government chit chat.

The Government’s Aviation Strategy will now not be presented to Parliament until summer 2019 despite the initial consultation in July 2017 promising the full strategy to be presented to Parliament “before the end of 2018”. The reason for the delay is unclear but campaigners say the strategy could in fact be put in jeopardy because of its reliance on Heathrow expansion – a project which has major parliamentary and legal hurdles to overcome. Rob Barnstone, Coordinator of the No 3rd Runway Coalition, said: “This strategy is written on the basis that Heathrow expansion is a done deal. It is in fact very uncertain with parliamentary and legal hurdles which it will struggle to overcome. The Government seems hell-bent on expanding Heathrow, despite evidence that alternative options for growth in the sector would bring a greater benefit to regions across the UK and not just in the south east, as usual.” It has always been profoundly unsatisfactory, and illogical, for a key part of the UK aviation sector – Heathrow airport – being decided upon BEFORE the UK aviation policy for the whole sector. Rationally, it would be the other way round – aviation policy first, and then decide on whether Heathrow should expand.

.

Dobbo_Dobbo 8th Apr 2018 10:41

If true, this should not be any great surprise. The proposed scheme is far from settled and there are financial, environmental and legal impediments that would invariably prevent the scheme from commencing (even if the political obstacle is overcome).

The disconnect between the facts on the ground, and the public comments by HHL and the govermment are extraordinary. Perhaps this is the reality check they need to go back to square one and come up with a workable and deliverable scheme.

Skipness One Echo 8th Apr 2018 15:50

Back to square one. That thing we’ve done for the last 50 years?
It would just be yet another rerun of the same old arguements yet again, there’s nothing really fresh or new here. Our politics is paralysed as no one leads. I’d rather see the wrong decision made than none, even if that means building out a Gatwick that not one airline has asked for.

Dobbo_Dobbo 8th Apr 2018 17:14


Originally Posted by Skipness One Echo (Post 10111291)
Back to square one. That thing we’ve done for the last 50 years?
It would just be yet another rerun of the same old arguements yet again, there’s nothing really fresh or new here. Our politics is paralysed as no one leads. I’d rather see the wrong decision made than none, even if that means building out a Gatwick that not one airline has asked for.

As far as I am aware, not one airline has asked for the current LHR scheme (i.e. one which would lead to increased charges).

Frankly, LHR are painted into a corner (partly of their own making) and it is difficult to see a way out. If that leads to an emergency expansion of LGW - which the government now accepts delivers a greater financial return for UK plc. - then that's not a bad outcome IMO.

Dannyboy39 9th Apr 2018 06:04


Originally Posted by Dobbo_Dobbo (Post 10111353)
As far as I am aware, not one airline has asked for the current LHR scheme (i.e. one which would lead to increased charges).

Frankly, LHR are painted into a corner (partly of their own making) and it is difficult to see a way out. If that leads to an emergency expansion of LGW - which the government now accepts delivers a greater financial return for UK plc. - then that's not a bad outcome IMO.

I'd like to know how they're calculating that LGW offers a better financial return. Is it just a case of meddling with them to make it sound that way?


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:31.


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