|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10182280)
It's not unknown for a flight with an STA post-0600 to land before that time, probably a couple per day on average.
Usually if a post-0600 arrival is permitted to land before 0600, it’s because it’s been swapped with a pre-0600 arrival that is running late that day. |
Prophead - I seriously think the heat has got to you. Is there nothing that you won't argue AGAINST?
In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news. At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time. |
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10182553)
Lists of permitted pre-0600 arrivals get exchanged between Heathrow, the tower and Swanwick to ensure only those who are permitted to land before 0600 do so, according to the night quota system.
Originally Posted by Gonzo
(Post 10182553)
Usually if a post-0600 arrival is permitted to land before 0600, it’s because it’s been swapped with a pre-0600 arrival that is running late that day.
|
Prophead - I seriously think the heat has got to you. Is there nothing that you won't argue AGAINST? In your space time contium everything and i mean everything is seen as good news. At least the rest of us can debate for good or indeed bad but you just trot out the same old bland stuff all the time. I was merely pointing out your post, that seemed strangely overenthusiastic about them moving had no bearing on the Heathrow project but also, was quite uncalled for. I think it is safe to assume there will be at least a few people finding themselves out of a job and your comment 'Ha Ha, So long suckers' wasn't really appropriate. |
Skip quotes The Cranford Agreement was removed by Labour’s Geoff Hoon years ago(#). 09L deps only (##) happen in the overnight period on the standard runway rotation published on the website, winds permitting. Daily 09L deps on a BAU basis are sub-par against target dep rate due to the lack of space abeam the 500s at the moment and more runway holds required (###)further developments were put on hold awaiting the decision on R3. (#) 2010. (##) I am concentrating on 09L arrivals for 19hrs continually. (###) they were in the plans so why submit that were not suitable or correct. Heathrow submitted plans to Hillingdon council, they were rejected, they went to appeal and they were granted. They then waited nearly 5 months and publicly declared they would not go ahead and absorb the plans into R3. This has saved them substantial money and delayed any respite for those living under the easterly patterns until minimum 2026. It also withdraws any noise over Cranford residents who would be aghast at the new noise footprint, which they will from both 09L and R3 in future. |
@Trinity 09L
Your main complaint is that the system that's always been used in my lifetime, i.e. always landing on the Northern runway when on Easterlies remains in place. I don't know how long you have lived locally, four years for me, but that's been the situation for decades and I cannot fathom your genuine rage at this. I dare not get dragged into a long argument on this so are you : 1) A long time local 2) An incomer Just to try and understand what is driving your anger here. If you were a long time local, you'd be bench-marking against One Elevens, DC9s, Tridents, Concorde etc. My local pub has 787s crossing the perimeter fence with approach lights across the road from the beer garden barely needing a raised voice. BA 744s a different story obvs but that's progress. |
We're continually being told by those who make the decisions that runway alternation respite, like motherhood and apple pie, is a Good Thing.
Other than a few anoraks, most West London residents would probably agree that, when 27s are in use, having aircraft inbound over their heads 50% of the time is preferable to 100% of the time. Having been promised the same deal after many years of 100% of arrivals overhead when on easterlies, it's not that hard to understand why the residents of Windsor are dismayed to have been subsequently told that alternation isn't going to happen for another 10 years. |
Druk Many thanks for your explanation that there is an area with no respite for 19 hr landing operations for 30% of the year,and of course departures to the west 70%. Skip I have no rage or anger, emphasis in bold is to draw attention. My association pre dates jets you quote, to include Constellations, Britannia’s,Viscounts, Vanguards etc Coronado’s, 707 and DC 6,7,& 8. I was working on the days the BOAC 707 returned to LHR, and proud to count one the cabin crew still alive as a friend. I was also at work when Papa India did not return but was responsible to get a memorial established in 2004. I am unable to meet the civil servant who without the consent of the electorate or parliament introduced the Cranford agreement. I am a resident which covers the breadth of above reply. |
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/heathrow-plans-could-push-up-the-cost-of-flights-z8jxsrfhv?CMP=Sprkr-_-Editorial-_-thetimes-_-Unspecified-_-TWITTER
I will refrain from using the word "suckers" which I concede was said in haste, but I could have sworn the Transport Commission suggested the 3rd runway would usher in a new era of low fares. We need Davies to come in on a prancing pony and clarify the situation. |
Has there been any news on the accident between a safety car and BA engineering van that left the driver deceased?
|
Originally Posted by wondrousbitofrough
(Post 10183310)
Has there been any news on the accident between a safety car and BA engineering van that left the driver deceased?
|
but I could have sworn the Transport Commission suggested the 3rd runway would usher in a new era of low fares Incidentally I read that our annual foreign aid budget was now £14bn. Whilst we argue about whether large sums should be spent on the north or south over 10+ years there is a huge amount going out of the country every single year. |
I'm lost for words.
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/jul/01/warnings-of-anger-and-outrage-if-government-cancels-transpennine-electrification?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true Perhaps we should introduce "regionalism", as a form of persecution. Oh hang on, we have. How the hell have the "peanuts" required for the Leeds Manchester line which I might add would be transformational come under so much scrutiny when HEATHROW has been waived thru ? This has taken bollocksology to stratospheric levels of incompetence |
Navpi
No matter what evidence is to hand, the establishment always wanted the expansion at Lhr because it suits. That is regardless of cost, any other evidence etc. From the start of the last enquiry, the answer was always Lhr is the answer, what questions do we need to ask to get there. More importantly, what good evidence do we need to ignore. So the last report worked on the assumption that Lgw would not reach 40m pax until 2030 I think was the date. They are now past 45m already and no-one asks how can this be so wrong and how might it alter the result if the correct numbers were used? We will be told all sorts of lies about the wonderful benefits we will all enjoy from an expanded Lhr, almost all will never happen and nobody ever has to explain. The North doesn't matter at all, the world stops at Watford. And we ridicule countries like Russia. Here is no better with some of the deceit that goes on. |
Have to agree with the sentiments expressed in the last 2 posts by Navpi and True Blue. We're far from a 'United' Kingdom in some respects and the DfT and current Transport Secretary are only emphasising that point whether intended or not.
With hindsight, it is easy to see why the Commission's conclusion was inevitable. If 'retaining the UK's hub status' was part of its purpose, what other conclusion was a committee led by an establishment figure likely to come to? The Gatwick traffic forecast was a travesty. And only belatedly did it dawn on folk that Davies was happy to sacrifice growth of direct services at important regional airports for the benefit of Heathrow expansion. In that light, the claim that R3 would benefit the whole of the UK looks like a complete sham. I wish it were down to just gross incompetence. Incompetents can be got rid of and replaced hopefully by those slightly less incompetent. However, I feel it's reflective of a deeper rooted problem and frankly I don't see things changing anytime soon. |
Originally Posted by True Blue
(Post 10186081)
Navpi
The North doesn't matter at all, the world stops at Watford. And we ridicule countries like Russia. Here is no better with some of the deceit that goes on. |
Agreed withTrue blue and nav pi £1bn on a tidal electricity project in Swansea for UK power or same cost as short rail link to LHR, they decide on rail. |
And if Manchester-Leeds electrification is binned, any guesses as to where the money saved will be spent?? What other rail links to Heathrow can we conjure up?
Still, must try and not get too depressed about the priorities selected by the DfT and our wonderful Transport Secretary. The sun's shining here in the North and some folk have even taken off their clogs and cloth caps. |
At least MAG fund their own development. It might not be bright and shiny but it just about does the job.
|
Manfod. Part of the uncosted infrastructure plans for LHR is the southern rail link to Staines so they can reach Waterloo and South West. It is only a dual track with third rail power no overhead lines and no current capacity for a new service.�� |
Originally Posted by Trinity 09L
(Post 10186668)
Manfod. Part of the uncosted infrastructure plans for LHR is the southern rail link to Staines so they can reach Waterloo and South West. It is only a dual track with third rail power no overhead lines and no current capacity for a new service.�� |
:ugh:It's OK, they can just remove commuter trains as they did when Gatwick Express was invented. Commuters put up with anything.:ugh:
|
Shenzhen Airlines starting flights from Shenzhen
to LHR from end October 18 |
With David Davis throwing in the towel there is speculation that Grayling, a staunch lieutenant of the Prime Minister "might" get the job.
As a loyal supporter of Heathrow there could of course be implications down the line as he holds the brief to defend the large number of objections now piling up in the courts. There are many in the North who would love to see him move on. Having wrecked transport infrastructure in the North he would at least end up taking the rest of the country down with him. |
Navpi
Unfortunately your wish not granted. However £1.5bn contract to upgrade the Piccadilly Line with new rolling stock and signals. However, less seats and more standing room increases the capacity which is still not enough for R3 predicted growth. So far £2.5bn spending of our money for R3. |
However £1.5bn contract to upgrade the Piccadilly Line with new rolling stock and signals. However, less seats and more standing room increases the capacity which is still not enough for R3 predicted growth Not sure where your coming from, |
Originally Posted by Prophead
(Post 10192360)
So you want them to spend more? To provide more capacity?
Not sure where your coming from, |
I use the Piccadilly line every day as do many, many others. Only some of these actually go all the way to LHR.
The trains are old rickety things and in need of upgrading. This is just part of TFL's ongoing tube upgrade program. Just because LHR is on the end of the line does not mean it is being done for the benefit of the airport. |
Heathrow relies on the tube to move passengers (cheaply) it was extended to the airport for that reason.
|
I don't dispute that but why should it pay for TFL's upgrade when TFL earns so much from tube ticket sales?
Should HAL be paying towards BA's fleet upgrades? After all BA flies into LHR and bring passengers to the terminals to shop. TFL runs the tube network to multiple destinations and makes good money from it. Why do you expect them to start asking popular destinations to contribute towards running their business? Should the museums also contribute? What about Harrods, Buckingham Palace, Tower Bridge etc. They all rely on the tube to bring them customers. Should they be giving TFL money? |
Typically house-builders do pay towards the provision of public transport in London, don't they? E.g. the current Northern Line extension
The Northern line extension (NLE) is estimated to cost £998.9m based on completion by the end of 2019. The Government confirmed in the Chancellor’s 2012 Autumn Statement that up to £1bn of borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board would be available to the Greater London Authority (GLA) to finance the construction of the NLE. Whilst the borrowing will be undertaken by the public sector, the funding to repay this borrowing will come from the private sector in the form of: • Incremental business rates generated and retained within a new Enterprise zone; and • Developer contributions, raised by the London Boroughs of Wandsworth and Lambeth on the Battersea Power Station site and across the wider Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area under the Section 106 and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regimes. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/nl-factsheet-i-web.pdf (my bold) |
Extending the line to support a particular development is different. House prices in London are very dependent on proximity to a tube station. The developers of Battersea Power Station and Nine Elms will make considerable profit as the extra value they can sell the apartments for will be greater than the cost of the extended line and station. This is more comparable to the construction of the Heathrow Express or the Heathrow Crossrail link.
Upgrading TFL's trains on an existing line, which makes TFL a profit, of which only some of the passengers are going to LHR isn't the same. |
The Northern line extension (NLE) is estimated to cost £998.9m based on completion by the end of 2019 |
Heathrow boss demands Americans be allowed to use e-gates ‘No reason to treat a passenger from the US differently to one from Lithuania’ |
|
Originally Posted by bcn_boy
(Post 10205193)
when the Americans treat us Europeans the same at immigration on their side of the pond, then I have no problem with that. Until then, finger print them and hassle them at the border. |
For discussion! just looking at an on old ( not too)airfield map from Heathrow. Know(and now) it’s all hypothetical..but what would the consequences and future have been if the 05/23 runway had been retained..both operational and financial? Terminals could have been planned and thought out..on a complete East...west orientation .inc.the maintenance area..which possibly could have gone... too late I know..but could have worked? |
Originally Posted by highwideandugly
(Post 10214596)
Terminals could have been planned and thought out..on a complete East...west orientation .inc.the maintenance area..which possibly could have gone...
too late I know..but could have worked? On the contrary, you have just described exactly what is planned. |
It's behind a paywall but but reference here to more incompetence by GRAYLING.
In an interview with the FT, Transport Committee Chair Lilian Greenwood accuses Chris Grayling of ignoring the majority of Committee's recommendations on 3rd runway, thus increasing the chances of a successful legal challenge https://t.co/UemYGELU2e via @financialtimes |
On a separate matter but linked, the DfT state that admissions in the parliamentary committees cannot be used in objections, as they are privileged, though held in public. :ugh: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.