Heathrow-2
 

HAL is expected to announce today that it will not proceed with its revised planning application for the post-Cranford enabling works that would allow full runway alternation on easterlies.

Instead, any substitute plans will be bundled in with the Development Consent Order that will form part of the Runway 3 planning process, which in turn will have to await the outcome of the public consultation on expansion.

Heathrow says it understands the frustration of residents to the west of the airport (particularly in Windsor) caused by the further delay, which will mean that for the foreseeable future almost all arrivals will continue to use the northern runway (09L) when the airport is operating on easterlies.

DRUK
I can confirm the above as announced today by HAL.
They could not explain where the new taxiways would be, or why they had not planned correctly beforehand. The cost of the appeal against the original decision which HAL won, falls to the residents of LB Hillingdon as wasted exercise. HAL believe the new taxi ways will change a noise footprint on the ground.
However not doing the work they wanted now saves them considerable money, as it would have to be removed in future for R3. Also if the easterly ops went ahead then a whole new set of residents would be greeted with a new overflying noise footprint on departures ie the NE corner of LHR.

SAS Ireland to base 5 A320neo to take over existing routes from SAS out of LHR
SAS Ireland startet in London-Heathrow und Malaga

*Quietest airline at Heathrow? Hint: don't ask the airport!
 

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


*So who IS the quietest/cleanest airline at LHR? Based on the published metrics, Aer Lingus can now claim BA's title, accompanied on the podium by Finnair and Etihad in second and third place, respectively.

Noise
 

If an airline changes the equipment (eg at short notice) who checks that the substitute aircraft in use meets the noise restrictions required by Heathrow.:hmm:
If a vehicle with a defective exhaust or is overweight then Police or DVLC deal.

What are you thinking about specifically? The world of aviation is remarkably uniform, A320s predominate. It's been a while since I've even seen an MD80 at LHR. The problem, if there even is one, is tiny.
May I ask, are you a local resident affected badly by living near LHR? Genuine question.

Specifically - noise out of hours. The type - A340 probably at max weight embarking on a 13.5hr non stop flight. The airline is not featured in the top 50 of the list from Heathrow, and of late is persistently delayed late in arrival and departs after the curfew. I regret I have been around since Viscounts Vanguards 880/ & Coronado's. My location is obvious. Can you answer my original question?

The process that I am aware of (albeit for a different airport) would require the airline to supply a noise certificate prior to a slot being issued. If it exceeds the approved noise quota then a slot would not be approved.

Thank you "Commit" I hope LHR abide by transparency in their reply.

All the detail is on the Gov website if you want it under Night Flying Restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted Airports. It is due to be superseded by a new arrangement from this winter I understand.

The Night Flying Restrictions detail which aircraft types are and aren't allowed to operate at Heathrow during the night and, for those that are, they specify the amount of Noise Quota each movement consumes (based on certificated noise values for the type in question).

That's distinct from actual noise per departure, which comes from readings from fixed monitors located at the 1000' point (6.5 km from the start of roll). That data is used to established whether or not a noise infringement has occurred.

@Trinity 09L is the real issue for you not 09L is being used for night departures more? That's what's bugging you? I live in Feltham so I get them on 09R but it doesn't bother me. Now my neighbours smoking and whispering in Polish after 9pm drives me nuts.....

I would refer you to my post 5006, and the latter post on a specific unnamed airline that was departing west. Your last sentence is worthy of moderating.

Why? I can't understand a word, that's a form of torture for me in the same way that un-named (Virgin Atlantic or Phillipine Airlines) heavy A340s are to you. People whispering and smoking pot beneath my window annoy me more than 777s heading for the far east. People get annoyed for different reasons but the Cranford Agreement is gone and a third runway is coming so late evening 09L departures will likely be more common to share the noise pain.
If it materially affects your life, you need to move. Honest answer.

Also to be clear, there is NO curfew per se. There are restructions on out of normal hours ops but no curfew. The number of nights 09L is even used post 2300 and the said A340 has been delayed can be counted on one hand I would think? The last A340 heading West is the VS025 about 8pm btw.

Sorry I have no sympathy with those who complain about the noise near Heathrow or its flightpaths unless you moved to the area before 1946 when London Airport opened. End of.

"The last A340 heading West is the VS025 about 8pm btw."
PR flight an A340/300 or 600 scheduled to depart at 22.20 either west or east depending on ops.

PR must be a -300 (they have no -600s). I have watched this take off from the other end of route - classic "airborne due to the curvature of the earth" job.

It's a -300, far from the noisiest aircraft at LHR, and bound for Manila so heading East. If you download fr24 on your smartphone it will answer all these questions for you.

Aren't the north-turning departing flights from 09L unprotected by the 6.5km noise monitors ?

The July 2014 "Decision" on the position for new monitors said :
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...ion.pdfhttp://
What chance them getting them up and running ?

It's odd how all the complaints around EGLL centre on aircraft noise. The place is surrounded by motorways and trunk-roads, yet you never hear a squeak from The Cockenese about the continuous row all the road traffic makes.

There's no one to complain to about road noise.

The aircraft are departing to the west. The cranford agreement has been removed/closed however HAL have decided not to go ahead as they now state taxiways have to be changed other than those planned. Therefore no easterly ops on 09L until 2023.

Pardon my ignorance but why do taxi ways need to change to allow takeoffs in one direction when something must already be there to allow landings from the other direction?

The taxiways at the threshold of 09L were not designed to have as much holding space or as many entry points as their equivalents for 27L/R and 09R. Hence the sheer volume of space needed to have the taxi-ing traffic spaced out for maximum efficiency to keep runway movements up isn't there, the area is constrained for space.

There is the additional issue that the T5 domestic stands are right at the end of the runway, so any proper development to allow 09L departures on a daily basis will likely be part of the runway three works.
No point in doing the work only to have to do it all again at the end of it.

New transport committee chair pins support to Heathrow mast.

New City Metric Article - Lilian Greenwood MP

Right decison BUT somewhat concerned re impartiality?

Meanwhile...

"Andrew Cowan, CEO of London Stansted Airport, has today welcomed the Government’s proposal to make best use of existing runway capacity across the UK to improve global connectivity and provide more choice for passengers.

The proposal is a key part of the Government’s new aviation plans to boost economic growth, connectivity and skills and follows the Airports Commission recommendations in 2015 on the need in the short term to make full use of existing airport capacity in the UK before a third runway at Heathrow is built."

I really cant see such a weak government trying to push through R3 at LHR, so the stalling tactics begin, i.e. like above...

No point in doing the work only to have to do it all again at the end of it.[/QUOTE]

Who drew up the plans without the knowledge of working out the space constraints already in existence? Why apply for planning permission? Lose it and go to appeal and win, and then decide not to do the work?

I await the plans for R3 - shurely no mistakes possible then. :rolleyes:
They must still have the crayons sharpened to tunnel/bridge/ramp/viaduct the M25 somehow.

Stephen Allen applied for the Heathrow Planning Permission on 25th March 2013.

London Borough of Hillingdon - Planning

The Davies Commission looking into the possibilities for runway expansion in the South-East only had its terms of reference announced in November 2012 and Heathrow issued its initial proposals to the Commission in July 2013.

I think it is reasonable that the planning permission scheme might have been developed without assuming the likelihood of a full runway expansion.

And it is understandable that Heathrow may decide not to incur the expense of implementing the original proposal if will only be of benefit for a year or so before it is thought that it will be subsumed in the work to create R3.

The link quoted to the Hillingdon planning documentation does not work.

It can be accessed from the link given at

http://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/26583

Sorry to be so negative but please don't waste your time on energy on the proposed third runway at Heathrow, it is never going to be built - as that d***head Shaun Spicer would say PERIOD!

It is just another in a sequence - disappointing UK.

WE are building HS2 which is not needed - we will not build the third runway at Heathrow which is.

I just don't know why we are getting everything so wrong. All so the insulated wealthy in Richmond London and the SE can have their lifestyle while the country goes to rack and ruin - and those who need to commute to London can only afford to live in Birmingham.

Well said 22/04. Every time I set foot in my home country I despair, so I try not to come back too often which is a real shame.

Do we have the link re

"making best use of airport capacity " ?

If this was made 22nd at the launch of Manchester expansion it is bizarre as Grayling immediately briefed the press on cutting proposed access increases to the airport from Leeds ( re electrification) and expansion of two additional platfirms at Picadilly, all vital to the airport to the airport.

Bit like giving the go ahead to crossrail then pulling the plug !

A general moan just to get it off my chest.

Tuesday 25th, we arrived the last flight from Nice, bags delivered quickly, car waiting, etc, etc, but then....

Exit road from T5 to M25 closed for roadworks, with a diversion around the Northen Perimiter Road to the A4 and main tunnel. Wouldn't have been so bad if they weren't also digging up the Northern Perimeter Road just outside the BA Ops building.

Result was 35 minutes from T5 to the M4 spur / A4 roundabout.

Which brainless idiot allowed both sets of roadworks at the same time ??

To cap it all, and nothing to do with HAL, the entry to the M4 Jct 4 was also closed westbound with no advance warning, with a ridiculous detour signposted through Southall and Hayes BACK to Jct 3.

End result - almost 45 minutes from T5 to M4/M25 junction at well past 23.00.

Rant over....

Wait till work starts on M25 M4 expansion re RW3.

UK tends to expand road infastructure at a glacial pace do it could be gridlocked for 10 years :)

T5 road & Perimeter Rd LHR property, they do as they wish.
At least you got through Southall and Hayes safely to report. Please wait for the M4 SMART improvements which should give you a vista of Slough at night as well.:rolleyes:

Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion
 

The test being whether the leader or shadow chancellor wants the project to go ahead.

End of test.

Remember that the air quality issues are mainly caused by motor vehicles, not planes.

Yes, that's my understanding.

The argument is (presumably) that more fligts -> more passengers -> more vehicle journeys.