Of all the carriers at LHR, I'd never have thought ANZ would go - I guess more as a result of how long they've been here rather than any privileged insight into their performance. Sad news for the UK-based team who will be affected.

It does make you think that either the route's performance was terribly bad or they have been made an offer they can't refuse for the LHR slots.

Was looking at LA prices where BA and Virgin was £1200 return Air New Zealand was £350 return.

Any thing in this

Flight - Air NZ to start New York flights but end London service

I wonder if the proposed QA non-stops from NYC have anything to do with this? We'll never know but there are now numerous European routes to Auckland.

Latest Fly Quiet & Green results
 

Heathrow yesterday "published" its latest Fly Quiet & Green results - as usual they are concealed for the time being behind a password screen to allow LHR the opportunity to brainwash important stakeholders before the stats are exposed to the cruel gaze of scrutiny by the more numerate public.
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c0b67c3a90.jpg
https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.com/2019-3rd-qtr/

Analysis to follow once they are revealed.

Oooh - a guess the password game :ok:
I reckon it's "Borisbulldozer2025"

Except it's properly niche stuff and not really on the radar come on! It's like they gave an intern a project to do and their manager only glances at it before it goes public. I hope that's not true. That might be true. #cynical

Garuda Indonesia
 

Can anyone confirm whether GA have suspended or pulled out of LHR? I've just checked Flightradar24, and it appears as though there are no further schedules planned for GA87/86 for the foreseeable future.

Garuda's route map shows a service to LHR. One list of international destinations on their website does, another doesn't.

HAL seem to have no flights to Jakarta till Christmas- I've not looked later than that.

I don't suppose even Garuda know.

Last info in Routesonline was 14 Oct with three A330s each week.

Fit-for-purpose ?
 

Heathrow yesterday exposed the above-mentioned Q3 Fly Quiet & Green results to public gaze (though as of a few moments ago, they seem to have disappeared again, so possibly common sense has prevailed).

Rather than catalogue the usual sad story of arbitrary promotions, demotions and just plain nonsense that, as ever, feature in the results. I've simply attached the scorecard that Heathrow appears to have used to propel SAS to this quarter's Number One slot (even though Oman Air, United and BA shorthaul actually performed better).

Eagle-eyed PPRuNers and any passing O-level Maths students will spot that HAL has deducted so few points (only 42) from SAS for the 89 places it dropped across all the metrics, that even if it had been the worse-performing airline for every metric, it would still have scored 806 points out of 1,000 !

If anyone can explain how that results in a scheme that's meant to incentivise airlines to improve their environmental performance being fit-for-purpose, I'd love to know.

https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.com/2019-3rd-qtr/

Tory Party Manifesto on LHR
 

Tory Party Manifesto

Parliament has voted in principle to support a third runway at Heathrow, but it is a private sector project. It is for Heathrow to demonstrate that it can meet its air quality and noise obligations, that the project can be financed and built and that the business case is realistic. The scheme will receive no new public money. More broadly, we will use new air traffic control technology to cut the time aircraft spend waiting to land, reducing delays, noise nuisance and pollution. We will also build on Britain’s pioneering work in electric and low-carbon flight.

R3 was always planned to be a private sector project. The issue was the amount of accompanying state investment in supporting infrastructure - M3/M25 and other road improvements, Piccadilly Line upgrades, etc.

What does the Tory manifesto say about those ?

Of course, if the Tories pull us out of the EU with no deal, LHR expansion is all going to be a bit academic.

Honestly the various manifestos talk so much b******** about infrastructure

Everyone knows the people aren't available to build it or to oversee the building. Look at Crossrail and HS2

Election issue Heathrow
 

I'm amazed it hasnt featured more widely as an election issue given the eye watering level of taxpayer subsidies.

I suspect the road and rail infrastructure which is taxpayer funded is now in the region of £20bn using HS2 and Crossrail as a yardstick.

It seems incredible that Labour have not picked up on this

Must confess I'm more right wing than Attila The Hun but I'm scratching my head as to the value of providing infrastructure for a new service to say Caracas if people are in AE for 36hours, nanny has zero support in terms of social care placement and criminals are allowed to roam our streets with impunity as we have a failed justice system cut to the bone and no police !

Maybe do the basics to provide a good standard of living for everyone and then subsidise a 3rd runway?

The argument will be that we need that service to Caracas as we are an international trading nation so need to do business to fund all those things - not saying its right, but that's the argument.