London Heathrow Airport has announced plans to install enhanced security scanners that mean passengers will no longer have to remove liquids and laptops from their bags.
My cyncial self says that I'll take a bet this does not “transform the journey through the airport” :rolleyes:
The Independent

Me too.

Press release on implementation:. "Hurrah! Instead of processing x pax per hour this new tech enables us to process 2x pax per hour which will halve time spent in security"

Implementation date plus 1 month, no press release but average staffed security lanes reduced by one.
Implementation day plus 2 months another lane goes.
Implementation day plus 3 etc etc

Until average number staffed security lines are halved; and the not insignificant cost saving is trousered by the operator.

Beancounter 1.01

More bizarre "Fly Quiet" results
 

Heathrow has this week belatedly published the results from its Fly Quiet & Green programme for Q1 2019.

For Q1, as with previous quarters, league table scores have again been inflated, this time by a record 46% compared to the results that are produced when Heathrow's own published methodology and performance rankings are used. Once again that increase has not been applied uniformly across all of the 50 airlines considered (some of the poorer performing carriers have been awarded more than double the number of points that they merit), with the result that the relative league table positions are significantly distorted.

A more detailed look at the Q1 table shows:

a) Individual airline scores are inflated by between 9% and 135%, with the poorest performing carriers receiving the biggest unjustified increase in their score. For example, the 797 points score awarded by Heathrow to Jet Airways is 434 points more than the airline actually merits under Heathrow's own rules, based on its published performance metric rankings.

b) 48 out of the 50 airlines in Heathrow's table are awarded more than the correctly calculated average (based on Heathrow's data and methodology) of 528 points (from a maximum possible 1,000 points).

c) Jet Airways and Air India are given an unexplained hike up the table, by 17 and 15 places respectively, compared to the positions that their performance merits.

d) Among the airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with this quarter's published results include China Southern, relegated 23 places from its rightful position, together with Icelandair shorthaul and Japan Airlines, each unjustifiably demoted by 16 places. El Al, despite meriting 368 points by Heathrow's own methodology, putting it just above Jet Airways, bizarrely ends up ranked 22 places and 281 points below the Indian carrier.

e) "RAG" (red/amber/green) classifications are again applied inconsistently; for example Cathay Pacific and BA longhaul, ranked 40th and 41st, respectively, by Heathrow for early/late movements, get an "Amber" for that category while American, ranked 35th for that metric by Heathrow, gets a "Red".

f) Finnair's wide-body types (Airbus A330 and A350) which account for more than 20% of its flights at LHR and should therefore, under Heathrow's rules, be considered separately, have been lumped in with the narrow-body fleet, thereby invalidating the results for metrics such as Quota Count per seat and CAIP.

However one positive outcome in this quarter's results is that, for the first time, Heathrow has successfully managed the tricky task of counting how many times each airline lands on its runways in order to to determine the 50 busiest airlines. Either that, or it simply used the list that I sent, back in April. :O

Impressive analysis. Worth tipping off Lord Gnome? strobes@private-eye.co.uk

DRuk Your reporting of this has been consistently fascinating. Why do you think the mgmt are doing this? What do they gain if their figures are believed?

So they are published in local London papers, their organ "Back Heathrow" and anywhere else, that they are so wonderful.
Mishaps like off NPR's, IPA, TBS, saving money by no full alteration until 2026, 26,000 movements inserted under cover of DCO instead of planning.

That's a very good question.

Other than the fact that it obviously looks good to make its airlines' performance appear quieter and greener than its own rules actually allow, I have no idea what Heathrow feels that it stands to gain by publishing stats that any bright GCSE Maths student could see through.

Certainly Heathrow is well aware that the results don't stand up to scrutiny - but its response to any challenge is to shoot the messenger (or subcontract that job to NATS :O) and describe criticisms as "bizarre", rather than attempt to explain or justify its figures.

Take top-placed BA shorthaul's results, for example. We're asked to believe that it scored only 43 points short of a "perfect" 1,000 despite coming close to bottom (45th out of 50) for engine emissions and two-thirds of the way down the rankings for Night Quota compliance.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6181d0927c.jpg

Incredibly, Heathrow has only docked BA a little over 0.6 of a point for every place lost across the seven parameters measured (adjusted by the appropriate "weighting"). That would mean, were BA to be the worst-performing airline (i.e. in 50th place) for every parameter, that instead of the zero points that the rules stipulate, it would still be awarded a score of 833 out of 1,000 !

Good work Dave - someone needs to keep them on the Straight & Narrow

perhaps a reference to the BBC Radio 4 "More or Less" programme - they are very good at skewering dodgy stats and their purveyors.......

personally I'd like to know exactly Who does this - it looks like the sort of thing you'd get from a kid on work-experience for a couple of weeks

It would appear that the slot holder will add two extra flights to Abu Dhabi effective end of June, whilst the third slot pair has been 'given' to Air Serbia and a 320 from the parent airline will be wet-leased to Air Serbia to facilitate this additional flight.

At the weekend, we will see two Air Serbia flights operate to Heathrow, just 10 mins apart!

Yes, that's a fair point.

Having said that, if any airport instigates a high-profile programme to measure and compare the environmental performance of its airlines (an objective that I fully support) then surely it has a duty to make the scheme work in a logical and transparent manner?

Instead, we have an implementation that fails woefully on both counts.

Leaving aside the ingenious way the final league table is manipulated, for example to propel BA shorthaul into first place when SAS, Delta and United actually performed better (what purpose could that possibly serve?), even some of the individual metrics are dodgy.

Take noise, for example. Heathrow uses the Quota Count values (based on ICAO noise certification - the higher the QC value, the noisier the aircraft). So far, so good - an average QC value per flight, or even per seat, would be a good parameter to use for that metric.

But rather than do that, Heathrow totals the QC values for all of an airline's movements, divides the sum by (number of flights x average seat size, i.e. total seats) and then divides the answer again by the number of flights. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the best way to get a good score is simply to have a lot of flights, since the aircraft type involved carries far less weight. Or, to put it another way, if any two airlines at LHR were to merge, their combined Fly Quiet ranking would improve overnight without any change in their operational performance.

Sure enough, BA longhaul, which operated nearly a quarter of its flights with noisy B744s (Departure QC:4) and B772s (QC:2), gets ranked as second-best carrier for Quota Count whereas Air India, with all but a handful of its flights using B788s (QC:0.5), gets ranked Number 20.

Who thought that up?

Would this relate to the A320 I saw operating into LHR on 21st & 23rd May? Gave me the surprise of my life!

It doesn't bode well for the claims for the process for Environmentally Managed Growth that Heathrow are talking about.

"•
We propose publishing an annual monitoring report to demonstrate compliance, and, looking
forward, a plan for how further growth would be managed to remain within limits.
•
We propose that an Independent Scrutiny Panel is set up to validate the monitoring, and could
require more reporting and closer scrutiny if limits were being approached.
•
The Independent Scrutiny Panel would have real power to enforce the limits, require remedial
action etc., even if that included suspending growth."

https://www.heathrow.com/file_source...s_Apr_2019.pdf

Lhr £16bn The Moon ....not that much more.....
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...moon-2024.html

HS2 £52 billion

LHR road and rail infrastructure £16 billion

The Moon.... £28bn

Good to see in the image the apron full of aircraft, need a new runway 4 ? and bottom right - is that KLM aircraft going off road to Colnbrook?

Deffo, to the right of T4, get those reservoirs moved!

If I operated any of the car parks currently along the North side of the Northern runway - I'd be worred as they have all been replaced by warehouse structures. So how much space will be needed for new car parks? ;)