HEATHROW

[DaveReidUK]

That's an awfully long-winded way of saying "OK, I was wrong about that bit". :ugh:

[Windsorian]

That's an awfully long-winded way of saying "OK, I was wrong about that bit".

I've no idea what you are on about; please enlighten us !

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Did they really? Eurostar has grown since moving to SPI - there is an inevitable trade-off with the areas you mention losing out, but anywhere to the north (including the Midlands etc) gaining. The reduction in journey time ensures a net gain - but I'm sure BA did indeed pick up pax from the Surrey area - again, LHR's location is a double bonus for them there, but LGW-BRU & CDG long gone.”

But LHR-CDG, LHR-ORY and LHR-BRU are still there, so are the pax from Middlesex, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, parts (west) of Surrey at least, and points further west of course. There’s no net journey gain on Eurostar from this far out, so flights are still necessary, and sometimes cheaper than the Eurostar.

These flights also provide pax from in and around Paris and Brussels to take advantage of the LHR hub.



Quote: “The only rail service I am aware of that links TWO airports in the same city area WITHOUT going through the city centre is the AREX in Seoul.

Now I don't want to beat Gimpo up too much (sorry, couldn't resist) - but it is primarily a domestic airport, with a few regional connections.

Given the choice - similar timings, similar fares - why would you fly via the Incheon-Gimpo combination, say to reach KIX if you could transfer through SIN, HKG etc?

The only reason I can think of is you fall for the marketing campaign that "Gimpo gets you to KIX".

Was there in 2007, took the subway from GMP to Seoul. At that time, ICN still had no express train to Seoul. Since then AFAIK, the express train between ICN and Seoul has now opened, and as it passes GMP, it might as well stop there.

It is a particularly East Asian arrangement to build a new airport far from the city and have it as the new hub with some domestic flights for connection purposes. The original airport handles point-to-point domestic and near abroad flights. Consequently domestic flights from the regions run into both airports.

It’s not just Gimpo (GMP) and Incheon (ICN) in Seoul: Hongqiao (SHA) and Pudong (PVG) in Shanghai, Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE) in Taipei, and Narita (NRT) and Haneda (HND) in Tokyo are other examples. HND has recently restarted some longhaul flights, but still on a relatively small scale (so far).

These four countries also have another thing in common: a very large number of domestic flights, and high speed rail networks. In other words, high speed rail has not killed the demand for domestic flights there, and nor would it in the UK.



Quote: “One of the proposed BAA Airtrack routes was 2tph semi-fast service to Guildford via Staines. LGW is also crying out for improved train connectivity and LGW to Guildford would help to achieve this.

Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”

You’re having a laugh!

Any idea how long that would take? It’s one hell of a “dog leg”! Even in traffic, National Express buses would be quicker.



Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please. Incidentally you know that the full BA and LGW flying programs wouldn't fill a runway 3 at LHR? Not even close.


Do you even understand how this market performs??? Locos like easyJet operate point to point, they don't do connections. Hence they're a bogus issue here, the business question is how to increase the capacity of a hub airport. Hence point to point is a side issue here.”

Indeed, this is why no frills operators are at the point-to-point airports: LGW, LTN, STN, etc., and not at the LHR hub airport.



Quote: “BA have brought back LBA as they got a once in a generation growth opportunity with BMI coming on board. Runway 3 could be ring fenced to have some slots for UK connectivity, allowing BA or VS to re-connect IOM, INV and JER into LHR. It would be small price to pay for additonal long haul profits, which still need to be fed to be viable.”

Exactly, it does need a proportion of the new slots created by more rwys to be ringfenced for thin domestic routes. This would also help make more longhaul routes viable (connecting pax). AFAIK, this course of action has been mooted in the House of Lords.



Quote: “The T5 rail station is best used for maximum efficiency by utilising through trains, rather than as a terminus station; there is unlikely to be sufficient demand for terminating trains from the West of Reading.”

No, not terminating at LHR-5, agree that this would be pointless. The idea would be that some long distance trains from west of Heathrow would stop at LHR-5, then LHR 1-2-3, then up to London via airport junction and vice versa of course.

LHR-5 up to London is on existing tracks, sorry, should have made it clearer.



Quote: “Of course you would need to be capable of joined up thinking, let alone joined up writing, to understand the logic of a semi-fast LHR-Staines-Woking-Guildford- Reigate-Redhill-LGW train service over mainly existing lines.”

There is no logic (see earlier in this post). BTW, semi fast would be difficult on that route, especially if frequency is required.



Quote: “Windsorian answer DaveReid's questuon please”

Am now more convinced than ever that Windsorian and Silverstrata are the same person!

Good old Silver also never answers the question over on the Thames estuary airport thread.

[DaveReidUK]

I've no idea what you are on about; please enlighten us !

I'm referring to the assertion you made which I quoted in post #2259 and invited you to to back up with some evidence.

To save you from having to look it up, here it is again:

Most unlikely the existing LHR airlines will allow any new start-ups on BAA's proposed R3

So I'll ask again: how does this supposed veto work ?

[Skipness One Echo]

Just some background numbers. If BA and VS moved everything on long haul from LGW into LHR, that would be
BA 9 based B772s
VS <=7 max B744/A330s
This is 16 slot pairs. If all of LGW long haul legacy was added :
CA 1 daily PEK (currently thrice weekly)
KE 1 daily ICN (currently thrice weekly)
US 1 daily CLT
VN 1 daily (currently five weekly)
BW 1 daily (currently thrice weekly)

All for twenty one slot pairs. Hardly maxing out any new runway. As to all of BA short haul coming over, that's over twenty based aircraft, at three rotations a day. easyJet won't move as they believe it to be too expensive.

[Windsorian]

All for twenty one slot pairs. Hardly maxing out any new runway. As to all of BA short haul coming over, that's over twenty based aircraft, at three rotations a day.

I think you're pulling my plonker, as a quick look at the LGW figures for 2011 shows :-

British Airways : 21,238 departures x 2 (arrivals) = 42,476 atms
Virgin Atlantic 2,060 departures x 2 = 4,120 atms

If total transferred to LHR = 46,596 atms

This compares with an initial 110,000 atms for R3 (limit due to existing air pollution).

So it would only need 87 return LHR flights / day (out of 1,310 daily atms) to be transferred from (LHR) R1& R2 for R3 to be full when it opens !!!

[Skipness One Echo]

.I think you're pulling my plonker, as a quick look at the LGW figures for 2011 shows :-
With this attention to detail, it's possibly Silverstrata's Berkshire cousin.
Go back and read it again.
The 21 slot pairs is LGW legacy long haul with existing LHR presence. I am excluding Emirates who serve LGW as a separate market and not as a LHR overspill. However even if you throw the Emirates operation in, that's only three more slot pairs.

Long haul Windsorian, that is long haul.
I then said BA were unlikely to move LGW short haul across in whole. I also said EZY wouldn't move at all. For God's sake try and read the detail and glean the background.
If total transferred to LHR = 46,596 atms
You're not splitting likely BA long haul moves from LGW remaining short haul. This is unlikely to move! They've sweated blood to get LGW short haul to a cost base where there's hope for profit and there's not talk of moving THAT part to LHR, indeed quite the opposite.

You remain blind to the different business models of point to point (LGW) and hub and spoke (LHR).

[DaveReidUK]

Master mathematicians don't bother themselves with the details. :O

Still haven't had an answer to my question either ...

[Windsorian]

it's possibly Silverstrata's Berkshire cousin

Skipness: So now you have resorted to name calling; is this really necessary just because you're loosing ?

Suggest you forget about long haul and legacy, you will only confuse yourself and everyone else. Please try and keep it simple !

If all the existing BA & Virgin flights are transferred back to LHR, that is a total of 46,596 atms. It seems safe to say the broad consensus about R3 is it's nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution.

Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.

If BAA had a collection of electic taxis & MPVs along with hydrogen powered single and double decker buses, they would have a pretty flexible choice of transport for anyone transferring between NHT & LHR. If only a handful of pax were transferring a taxi may be suitable, a few more and the MPV may be required; if the demand arose the single or double decker hydrogen bus could be used. Of course BAA would not need as many drivers as vehicles, if they were trained to drive all types.

[Skipness One Echo]

Suggest you forget about long haul and legacy, you will only confuse yourself and everyone else. Please try and keep it simple !

It's difficult, you are writing a lot about a subject matter upon which you have little understanding. The hub versus point to point and loco versus legacy are key points in understanding the market and how it behaves in the London area. I cannot forget it, it is front and centre to the subject matter.

One more time, BA have no wish to move all LGW short haul to LHR. Quite the contrary, you need to have a look at the recent IAG presentation to shareholders. There's a lot happening at LGW, I suggest you read up on the background and understand why.
You also need to understand why some routes will work at LHR and not LGW and vice versa.
Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.
This is stupid, utterly so. Once again, it is not a shortage of capacity in the South East. It is a squeeze on hub connectivity at LHR. There is a fair amout of spare capacity at LGW, really there is. STN stands half empty for much of the day and LCY and SEN have room to grow.

It seems safe to say the broad consensus about R3 is it's nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution.
No that's just your opionion, that's not the same thing, which is why reality bites, every road leads to LHR.

[Windsorian]

BA have no wish to move all LGW short haul to LHR.

Last week BAA called on the Davies Commission to seriously consider the Policy Exchange proposal for a 4 runway Heathrow; this surprisingly well informed document of pro-LHR propaganda, makes clear the effect of even a R3 is BA & Virgin will move all their operations back to LHR.

The trouble with BAA and BA is no-one believes what they say anymore which is why they now spend so much money paying for "independent" reports to support their claims.

it is not a shortage of capacity in the South East. It is a squeeze on hub connectivity at LHR.

There is no shortage of capacity at NHT which as far back as 1952 operated 50,000atms; if there is really an immediate need for additional runway capacity why don't you go for it ? As I have explained, with a bit of "can do" attitude you could have it up and running within 12 months; instead the official LHR saboteurs are intent on creating unnecessary problems to prevent it happening.

There is a fair amout of spare capacity at LGW, really there is.

Another misleading quote from yourself as we all know there is a serious structural imbalance between summer and winter traffic figures; this is the result of years of mis-management under BAA's ownership.

However under the new owners (GIP etc) there has been a steady improvement; there was a comment about this in last weeks parliamentary debate on regional connectivity. And it is LGW's new owners who want a R2 after 2019 in order to compete fairly as a hub airport in their own right.

STN under the continuing dead hand of BAA remains a basket case; however the Competition Commission have won in the courts and BAA will have to sell it next year. In time we will know if the new owners will also want a R2; it will be interesting to see how much BAA get in their enforced fire sale.

The expensively rekindled debate on a R3 & R4 at LHR smacks of desparation by BAA / IAG to get in quick before the new owners of LGW & STN get their houses in order. Hopefully the Competition Commission will insist they are allowed a fair chance to develop hub status without interference from the LHR bully boys.



R3 is nothing more than a dogs dinner and not a long term solution


The remit of the Davies Commission is to decide if, when and how airport capacity in the UK is allowed to develop in the short, medium and long term. Hopefully the British sense of fair play will ensure expensive bullying by the LHR companies is not allowed to prevent a level playing field.

[Skipness One Echo]

Sir, you are beyond naive.
You seriously think the solution is tents and busses from Northolt?
May I genuinely ask what your background and expertise is?

I am a marketing analyst, I work with numbers which model how people behave. What modelling has ever suggested people would use a half baked tent city at Northolt?
Also when have BA ever suggested moving all of LGW to LHR? T5 can't even fit the current LHR operation. Added to the fact that certain markets do better from LGW than LHR, my screnario of all long haul moving to LHR is possible. I gave you the numbers, they're not huge. Yet your plan is for "small planes" at Northolt.

Again how does this work?
Do KLM ERJ190s have to use Norholt?
No Skyteam lounge access for those flights?
Can Brussels Airlines use A320s to Terminal 1 but forced to send RJ100s to Northolt?
What's the minimum connecting time Northolt to T5?
How does that compare to AMS/CDG/FRA in a competitve market?
How does your plan affect BA?

Can you link to a document suggesting BA want to move short haul LGW into LHR in part or whole?

Go on, have a go at answering that Silver.

[DaveReidUK]

Can you link to a document suggesting BA want to move short haul LGW into LHR in part or whole?

Now don't be silly - our hero never lets the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Policy Exchange report actually says

"It is easy to imagine, for example, that British Airways and Virgin will consider consolidating some or all of their services from Heathrow, by reducing or eliminating their Gatwick operations."

No authority is cited for this statement in the report (sound familiar?), so for the purpose of Windsorian's case, it is transformed into

this surprisingly well informed document of pro-LHR propaganda, makes clear the effect of even a R3 is BA & Virgin will move all their operations back to LHR.

Hmmmm.

[Windsorian]

Go on, have a go at answering that Silver

Personally I'm off to the local service; perhaps you could give it (the insults) a rest for 1 minute at 11.00am.

[Libertine Winno]

This is all descending into lunacy now.

LHR should aim to remain THE hub airport of choice in Europe well into the middle of this century and beyond.

To propose that the best way of doing that is to put tents up at a military airfield 6 miles away and bus people between sites, or link to another airport 30 miles away suggests, in my opinion, at best a distinct lack of knowledge on what LHR needs to achieve or at worst, sheer delusion.

[ManofMan]

Personally I'm off to the local service; perhaps you could give it (the insults) a rest for 1 minute at 11.00am.

What on earth has Skipness's alleged name calling got to do with 11--11--11 ?? He absolutely pasted beyond belief any point you put across, you try and deflect from this by bringing in the 11th...disgusting.

Hang your head in shame o un-knowledgable one.

[jabird]

Seconded.

But LHR-CDG, LHR-ORY and LHR-BRU are still there. / These flights also provide pax from in and around Paris and Brussels to take advantage of the LHR hub.

so flights are still necessary


Err, unlike Windsorian, who is just wasting everyone's time with his airport camp Northolt idea, I think I actually agree with you on this one!

I will put across the reasons why trains are attracting more passengers, but I am a firm believer in competition between the two modes, for all the reasons you state.

After the DfT decision to award the WCML to First, Virgin rushed out a proposal to fly from MAN to LHR; do you really think the competition authorities will allow them to control both the plane and rail links?

I'm afraid that's yet another ill-informed conclusion drawn from two separate developments. Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI, and these negotiations take months. The announcement might have been brought forward, but that is it.

I personally think people are more likely to choose between air and rail based on factors such as convenience of the terminal location, frequency of service, ease of going through security (or not having to) and price, long before they worry about who is operating the route.

It’s not just Gimpo (GMP) and Incheon (ICN) in Seoul: Hongqiao (SHA) and Pudong (PVG) in Shanghai, Songshan (TSA) and Taoyuan (TPE) in Taipei, and Narita (NRT) and Haneda (HND) in Tokyo are other examples.

We were talking about linked pairs of airports which enabled easy transfer without going through city centre of changing, hence I higlighted Seoul. Afaik, to go between the others you need at least one change.

Correction - PVG to SHA is 27 stops on Line 2, but you will go via the city centre. I would guess a good 90 mins for the journey.

[Windsorian]

Whatever some of you may think about the various comments, I think we are pretty much on the ball for what the Davies Commission will be considering for their Interim (end of 2013) and Final Reports (after the 2015 General Election).

I see the facts and numbers I've been writing are about the same as Tim Clark from Emirates -

Emirates chief demands more Heathrow 'efficiency' - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2012/11/12/42249/emirates+chief+demands+more+heathrow+efficiency.html)

and I would point out his comment "Some short-haul services could be switched to other London and regional airports to free up capacity for more long-haul services" could be achieved by the NHT solution I have been postulating. Futhermore with a bit of "can do" it could be up and running within 12 months!

Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?

This is all decending into lunacy now. LHR should aim the hub airport of choice.

and you accuse me of lunacy !

[Skipness One Echo]

and I would point out his comment "Some short-haul services could be switched to other London and regional airports to free up capacity for more long-haul services" could be achieved by the NHT solution I have been postulating. Futhermore with a bit of "can do" it could be up and running within 12 months!

Hi Windsorian, I have asked you a few questions related to this. Can you please try and answer them?
As some background, which is always helpful. THis chap operates a long haul airline into LHR, of course he is going to say that. However a fair number of routes on some carriers won't work without feed, so that outs his competitors at a competitive disadvatage.

i.e. BA

Not being rude, but I urge you to become familiar with flyertalk and what needs to happen to make a route commercially viable.

Finally, once you've answered the questions we've asked, consider this one.

What is using Northolt adding?
Capacity is available at real and existing commercial airports today, at STN, LGW and LCY alongwith SEN.
Using NHT will not assist in hub connectivity at LHR.

You keep coming back to one single point about moving "small planes" from LHR and building a tent city at NHT to bus people to....LHR. What business question are you trying to answer and how does one take it to market?

"Tired of the comforts of lounge access? Have you considered everything a coach tour through London has to offer? London-Heathrow : Gateway to the UK"
Or some such. I am genuinely curious as to what this solution brings to the table.

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?
Again, may I respectfully point you in the direction of numerous threads discussing the pressing need for Virgin to have feed and connectivity to make sure their long haul business remains viable. They are vulnerable as they are outside the alliance structures at the moment, which is driving the need to build up short haul connections. There's a lot of interesting reading if you want to learn. With respect, the two businesses share little more than the name in the title and a figurehead.

And finally, I assume you are steadfastly against BA being allowed to launch LHR-LBA (Leeds) next month? Better that market, jobs, and growth is served over AMS / CDG / FRA with the Germans, French and Dutch.
Or would you like the inaugural from a tent near Ruislip?

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, of course Emirates would make the case for fewer short haul flights at LHR, that would free up capacity at LHR and also push people on to Emirates' own services from other UK and European airports.

It can easily be argued that it is in Emirates, and other airlines similarly placed, interests for LHR to forego it's hub status.........they would prefer........wait for it.........for Dubai (Abu Dhabi etc) to be the hub people in the UK use when flying eastbound.

[Libertine Winno]

I will come back to it again and explain why tents at Northolt and buses are lunacy;

The UK needs a 4 runway hub airport to ensure that business is not leaked to France, Germany or even the Netherlands, which all have 4 runway (or more) hub airports, and traffic is not routed via Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

The best solution I have seen, personally, is the policy exchange one proposing 4 runways to the immediate west of the current site. However, whether you are partial to two new runways north and south of the current two, or even one in the estuary, it is generally accepted that a 4 runway hub is required.

To that end, a fudge by making further runways at LGW or STN and linking them to LHR does not work, and similarly tents and buses from Northolt just doesn't cut the mustard. Why? Because transfer times will be lengthy, and the product will be far inferior to those on offer at CDG, AMS or FRA. Therefore, that is where the traffic will go and we do have not solved our problem. Those proposals look alarmingly like standard British political fudges, which will not solve the problem and probably be late and overbudget to boot!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Meanwhile NHT tents, taxis & buses remain a possible short term solution to the SE capacity problem.

If BAA had a collection of electic taxis & MPVs along with hydrogen powered single and double decker buses, they would have a pretty flexible choice of transport for anyone transferring between NHT & LHR. If only a handful of pax were transferring a taxi may be suitable, a few more and the MPV may be required; if the demand arose the single or double decker hydrogen bus could be used. Of course BAA would not need as many drivers as vehicles, if they were trained to drive all types."

Er, what does any of this have to do with the BAA?

Quote: “There is no shortage of capacity at NHT which as far back as 1952 operated 50,000atms; if there is really an immediate need for additional runway capacity why don't you go for it ? As I have explained, with a bit of "can do" attitude you could have it up and running within 12 months; instead the official LHR saboteurs are intent on creating unnecessary problems to prevent it happening.”

You’re missing the point, NHT could only work as a regional/commuter airport independent of, and completely separate from, LHR, and then only if a proper terminal is built (no tents!), and it has an adjacent station on the Central Line tube and Chiltern Railways.

Think of a SEN- or LCY- type operation with point to point thin domestic and near abroad routes (if border control have a presence), together with charter and holiday companys. Also bear in mind that the military presence would remain.

There is no way that NHT can be an overflow operation for LHR shorthaul, despite what Tim Clark of Emirates Airlines has to say on the matter. The only operations that could be diverted are the shorthaul charters, but that traffic is so insignificant, it’s hardly worth the bother!

Quote: “The expensively rekindled debate on a R3 & R4 at LHR smacks of desparation by BAA / IAG to get in quick before the new owners of LGW & STN get their houses in order. Hopefully the Competition Commission will insist they are allowed a fair chance to develop hub status without interference from the LHR bully boys.”

Windsorian, you must know that this is nonsense! Its not for the Competition Commission to determine which airports become hubs. That role is decided by the carrier(s) that set up a hub at any particular airport.

[Libertine Winno]

So the solution is simple; the commission should allow runways to be built at LHR, LGW and STN and then sit back and see who secures funding for their new runway based on a cost/revenue basis. None of this has any effect on the taxpayer anyway, so let the markets decide!

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “I'm afraid that's yet another ill-informed conclusion drawn from two separate developments. Virgin coming into the LHR-MAN market was a response to the end of BMI, and these negotiations take months. The announcement might have been brought forward, but that is it.”

Clearly, VS domestic was planned before there was an inkling of Virgin losing the WCML franchise. The two companies are completely separate and nothing to do with each other.

Quote: “I personally think people are more likely to choose between air and rail based on factors such as convenience of the terminal location, frequency of service, ease of going through security (or not having to) and price, long before they worry about who is operating the route.”

Exactly, and geography, as well as accessibility.

Quote: “We were talking about linked pairs of airports which enabled easy transfer without going through city centre of changing, hence I higlighted Seoul. Afaik, to go between the others you need at least one change.

Correction - PVG to SHA is 27 stops on Line 2, but you will go via the city centre. I would guess a good 90 mins for the journey.”

Agreed, but this model works so that, unlike the “Heathwick” proposal, there is usually no need to travel between the airports, as domestic flights from the regions (and the near abroad) run into both.

So, in the Shanghai example, if needing to transit through the hub (e.g. if on MU), PVG might be the airport of choice.

On a point to point flight one might use SHA or PVG, depending on such factors as the Shanghai origin/destination area, prices, schedules, airline preferences, etc..

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “This is all descending into lunacy now.

LHR should aim to remain THE hub airport of choice in Europe well into the middle of this century and beyond.

To propose that the best way of doing that is to put tents up at a military airfield 6 miles away and bus people between sites, or link to another airport 30 miles away suggests, in my opinion, at best a distinct lack of knowledge on what LHR needs to achieve or at worst, sheer delusion.”

Agreed, or indeed, an airport in the middle of nowhere and not linked to LHR (the Boris vanity project).

Quote: “Hi Windsorian, I have asked you a few questions related to this. Can you please try and answer them?”

Not a chance!
　
Quote: “And finally, I assume you are steadfastly against BA being allowed to launch LHR-LBA (Leeds) next month? Better that market, jobs, and growth is served over AMS / CDG / FRA with the Germans, French and Dutch.
Or would you like the inaugural from a tent near Ruislip?”

Good point!
　
Quote: “The UK needs a 4 runway hub airport to ensure that business is not leaked to France, Germany or even the Netherlands, which all have 4 runway (or more) hub airports, and traffic is not routed via Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

The best solution I have seen, personally, is the policy exchange one proposing 4 runways to the immediate west of the current site. However, whether you are partial to two new runways north and south of the current two, or even one in the estuary, it is generally accepted that a 4 runway hub is required.”

It’s the least bad option, at least some realistic thought has been put in. Take issue with abandoning 2 perfectly good 2.5 mi. long rwys and the demolition of reservoirs, but the principle of going west of the M25 is sound, just keep the existing (long) rwys and do 2 extra rwys and do them further north.

Quote: “To that end, a fudge by making further runways at LGW or STN and linking them to LHR does not work, and similarly tents and buses from Northolt just doesn't cut the mustard. Why? Because transfer times will be lengthy, and the product will be far inferior to those on offer at CDG, AMS or FRA. Therefore, that is where the traffic will go and we do have not solved our problem. Those proposals look alarmingly like standard British political fudges, which will not solve the problem and probably be late and overbudget to boot!”

Agreed, complete waste of time, and the best way to make our country an international laughing stock.


Quote: “So the solution is simple; the commission should allow runways to be built at LHR, LGW and STN and then sit back and see who secures funding for their new runway based on a cost/revenue basis. None of this has any effect on the taxpayer anyway, so let the markets decide!”

Interesting idea, suspect LHR would win this one by a mile, it’s far and away the best business case!

[jabird]

Time will tell; but if they are successful on the WCML, will they still want to fly to MAN?

You are confusing two entirely separate transport networks. The WCML is great for point to point services between the respective city centres, and is also fed through local connecting rail services and stations with vast car parks along the route. From multistorey to platform in a couple of minutes.

Air really doesn't win on the kind of journey described above. That's why around 80% of people travelling between London and Manchester already go by train (hs2 will therefore make little different to modal splits).

HOWEVER - some people find the air route offers them convenience for suburb to suburb journeys. Even after security and long walks to the gate, the flight itself still takes HALF the time.

More importantly, Virgin's existing network from Manchester is tiny. So by replacing a route previously operated by BMI, they can feed their OWN network without having to worry about dealing with their much loved friends at BA.

What has all this got to do with the WCML? Diddly squat! Remember - Virgin management only have c. 50% shareholding in either outfit.

[Torquelink]

I guess one of the major considerations of the review and the main focus of protest over additional runway(s) is noise. I'm sure suitable technically minded ppruners can answer the question: has there been a formal study as to the aggregate impact on overall noise caused by a) the predicted increase in atms and b) the replacement over time of e.g. A320/737NG by neo/MAX and the replacement of 777/A330 by 787/A350 etc. It could be that overall noise impact caused by use of an additional runway is offset by the reduction in noise emissions generally through the replacement of current generation aircraft by newer quieter models? If that was the case it would remove at least one plank of the objectors' arguments.

[DaveReidUK]

I guess one of the major considerations of the review and the main focus of protest over additional runway(s) is noise. I'm sure suitable technically minded ppruners can answer the question: has there been a formal study as to the aggregate impact on overall noise caused by a) the predicted increase in atms and b) the replacement over time of e.g. A320/737NG by neo/MAX and the replacement of 777/A330 by 787/A350 etc. It could be that overall noise impact caused by use of an additional runway is offset by the reduction in noise emissions generally through the replacement of current generation aircraft by newer quieter models? If that was the case it would remove at least one plank of the objectors' arguments.

AFAIK, the noise modelling, which is done by the CAA's ERCD on behalf of the DfT, uses a mix of aircraft types that corresponds to those using Heathrow.

I don't believe for a moment that they haven't plugged the timescale for those new types into the forecasting model.

[BALHR]

If you look on the area surrounding LHR, there is enough space for up to 6 parallel runways (without knocking down too many homes), so there is space for LHR to expand further

As for what the commission should say about LHR, they should state that R3 and R4 need to built, LHR problems are in a state that R3 is not enough

[Torquelink]

Dave,

Be interesting to see the outcome, particularly set against noise levels at current fleet mix which would then provide an indication of noise trends going forward.

[Torquelink]

If you look on the area surrounding LHR, there is enough space for up to 6 parallel runways (without knocking down too many homes), so there is space for LHR to expand further

As for what the commission should say about LHR, they should state that R3 and R4 need to built, LHR problems are in a state that R3 is not enough

Six?! I doubt it and then only by removing reservoirs - where are you going to locate their replacements? And if you're going to start messing around in or on the water, may as well head off to the estuary!

[BALHR]

Building R4 would need to filling up of the King George VI and Staines reservoirs (to limit the number homes that are to be demolished

R5 should be located North of the M4 and south of the GWML (in other words north of the proposed R3)

R6 will be located in Ashford and parts of Feltham in Surrey

So only 2 reservoirs will need to be filled, surely we could cope with that

[BALHR]

If a 3rd and 4th runway opens, you can be sure BA and VS will move their LGW ops to LHR, the same will go for other full-service airlines at LGW

That will free up space at LGW for Easyjet and Charter airlines to expand (or move ops from other London Airports) and that in turn will free up space at Luton and Stansted

So the best solution (if we stick to expanding out current airports) is expanding LHR as much as possible, the only other choice is shutting all our current major airports and build a new one

[Skipness One Echo]

British Airways, can you read the last few pages please, regarding BA and Vs moving?

[BALHR]

I have, but only after I wrote that post

[DaveReidUK]

BAA are due to present a report tomorrow as evidence to the Davies Commission, which will presumably also be released into the public domain.

According to the Independent, it will argue "that splitting a hub between Heathrow and Gatwick - the so-called Heathwick option - is not practical and that building up other airports as major hubs would not work either".

This is the same BAA who announced at a public meeting in Hammersmith just last week that they were "supportive of a second Gatwick runway".

Hmmmm.

[Dannyboy39]

Not sure this is the best argument for BAA/Heathrow to engage public opinion...

"Failure to keep a major hub airport could cost the UK up to one million front-of-the-aircraft passengers a year, Heathrow bosses are expected to say tomorrow... The possible one million lost passengers are those that fly in the first-class and business-class seats on flights through Heathrow."

Heathrow chiefs to make the case for keeping major UK airport hub - Home News - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/heathrow-chiefs-to-make-the-case-for-keeping-major-uk-airport-hub-8312653.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Building R4 would need to filling up of the King George VI and Staines reservoirs (to limit the number homes that are to be demolished”

This sounds like a variation on the “Free Enterprise Group” proposal, except they only envisage the demolition of Bedfont and Stanwell!

Quote: “R5 should be located North of the M4 and south of the GWML (in other words north of the proposed R3)”

this involves the demolition of West Drayton, a bigger town than either Bedfont or Stanwell.
Quote: “R6 will be located in Ashford and parts of Feltham in Surrey”

In Middlesex actually, and these two towns are even bigger than West Drayton!

So, all in all, this involves the demolition of several towns with a combined population approaching 100,000. Well done.

Quote: “So only 2 reservoirs will need to be filled, surely we could cope with that”

Well that’s alright then.

As mentioned before, open land across the M25 is the answer (for a 4 rwy airport).

[Fairdealfrank]

That's it in a nutshell! and the hub is LHR.

[adfly]

In the current situation I agree with Fairdealfrank that Heathrow needs 1, ideally 2 new runways however as a sidenote I also believe that Gatwick has a clear and strong case for a second runway, regardless of what happens around the M23/25.

[Skipness One Echo]

Not sure this is the best argument for BAA/Heathrow to engage public opinion...
Indeed, however this is the whole reason some of the fares down the back are cheap.

[FlyingEagle21]

TA-F*****g DA!

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/6821/15138409.jpg


(Visual Representation, not actual)

[johnnychips]

You're not John Betjeman's great-grandson, are you?

(Oh happy bombs...)

[BALHR]

This sounds like a variation on the “Free Enterprise Group” proposal, except they only envisage the demolition of Bedfont and Stanwell!


Unlike the FEG proposal, it will not need building over the M25 and filling up further reservoirs, nor will it require the moving of Heathrow's current runways

this involves the demolition of West Drayton, a bigger town than either Bedfont or Stanwell.

In Middlesex actually, and these two towns are even bigger than West Drayton!

So, all in all, this involves the demolition of several towns with a combined population approaching 100,000. Well done.

Befont and Stanwell have been part of Surrey since 1965 because Middlesex no longer exists (most of it is part of Greater London with some parts in Hertfordshire and Surrey)

Also I doubt if the number of people that would have to move (if 6 runways where needed) is 100,000

Quote: “So only 2 reservoirs will need to be filled, surely we could cope with that”

Well that’s alright then.

As mentioned before, open land across the M25 is the answer (for a 4 rwy airport).

[DaveReidUK]

if 6 runways where [sic] needed

When you get a spare moment, you might like to ponder why Googling "Heathrow fifth runway" gets precisely 8 hits, most of which are spoofs, and looking for the sixth gets only one, which definitely is.

[Skipness One Echo]

Also I doubt if the number of people that would have to move (if 6 runways where needed) is 100,000
Like some other posters, you need to focus on what is likely and achievable, it's not a case of "well we could do it in an ideal world." There will not be six runways at LHR now will there?

[BALHR]

When you get a spare moment, you might like to ponder why Googling "Heathrow fifth runway" gets precisely 8 hits, most of which are spoofs, and looking for the sixth gets only one, which definitely is.


I am not suggesting that LHR needs 5/6 runways, I am just saying it is not impossible, the question is however will any expansion at LHR be allowed?

[BALHR]

Like some other posters, you need to focus on what is likely and achievable, it's not a case of "well we could do it in an ideal world." There will not be six runways at LHR now will there?


I was suggesting there was space for 6 runways (if needed) at LHR, but I agree it is unlikely to be allowed, LHR does at least 2 however

What the government should be doing is give LHR planning permission for R3, R4, R5 and R6 (to prevent delays when LHR needs to expand) so at the very least LHR can build more runways depending on demand

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “Not sure this is the best argument for BAA/Heathrow to engage public opinion...

"Failure to keep a major hub airport could cost the UK up to one million front-of-the-aircraft passengers a year, Heathrow bosses are expected to say tomorrow... The possible one million lost passengers are those that fly in the first-class and business-class seats on flights through Heathrow."“

Quote: “Indeed, however this is the whole reason some of the fares down the back are cheap.“

Exactly, Skipness, a powerful motivator!


Quote: “You're not John Betjeman's great-grandson, are you?

(Oh happy bombs...)”

Hah! was looking at the picture, laughing, and thinking exactly the same before scrolling down to your post, johnnychips.

Great minds!




Quote: “Befont and Stanwell have been part of Surrey since 1965 because Middlesex no longer exists”

British Airways, don’t confuse local government and geographical locations. Trust me, geography is much easier!

Our discussions about LHR expansion are very much about geography, not councils, ... and demolition, of course.

Quote: “ (most of it is part of Greater London with some parts in Hertfordshire and Surrey)”

…..and Berkshire. Oops, Berkshire no longer exists.

Quote: “ Also I doubt if the number of people that would have to move (if 6 runways where needed) is 100,000”

Maybe not, but it’s not far off.

[PAXboy]

Until a better solution arrives, I'm going with the suggestion from (or linked by) FlyingEagle21.

Not least amongst the fine attributes of this plan is that BOTH the M4 and a main line railway are incorporated within the perimeter!! Absolutely brilliant. We need this kind of modern thinking in the UK. :ok:

[wxjedi]

When is the announcement on the ex BMI slots being made?????

Tom

[Heathrow Harry]

plus the Mars Bar factory!

[BALHR]

British Airways, don’t confuse local government and geographical locations. Trust me, geography is much easier!

Our discussions about LHR expansion are very much about geography, not councils, ... and demolition, of course.


But Middlesex is no longer around in any legal form, that part of the fomer county is no now part of Surrey,

…..and Berkshire. Oops, Berkshire no longer exists.

When Greater London was formed, it never took any part of Berkshire, only Hertfordshire, Essex and nearly all of Middesex

Berkshire still exists in legal from, its just that since the Mid-90s, it no longer has a County Council running things, its powers are now with LGAs

[Hangar6]

Aer Lingus were expecting to be told about their application for LHR EDI LHR slots today 15th , no word as yet.:ugh:

[FlyingEagle21]

A quick 5 minute analysis by myself and Microsoft paint.

If LHR was to be kept and expanded as the UK's Hub airport. Use the area to the southwest over the reservoirs. Minimal movement of thousands of people. (by either bulldozing homes or moving the hundreds of thousands of jobs across London)

Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt. I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island.

and of course some people will criticise this, but I'm probably thinking more about this than the current commission set up on the future of airport infrastructure..

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/266/14124540.jpg

[PAXboy]

FlyingEagle21 Set yourself up as a Consultant and start pitching ideas. All the people talking about the problems of expanding LHR and the folks proposing various fantasies - don't talk about the extra cost of going elsewhere.

The cost of staying where everyone knows the story and all the comms links (of all categories) are already in place, must be lower. For the folks that say they are going to be blighted by the noise - then agree some one-off compensation. It is far easier to pay them, than to build on mud in an estury! When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR. :D

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "When Greater London was formed, it never took any part of Berkshire, only Hertfordshire, Essex and nearly all of Middesex"

Don't forget Surrey and Kent. Greater London was/is accurately described as a "pig's breakfast", forget by who exactly, but it's proved an expensive one for sure, ask any ratepayer.

The Berkshire part came later. If had not have been for more nonsensical changes in 1974, it would have been Buckinghamshire. Poyle and Colnbrook (east of the river Colne) came under Berkshire Council from around the early 1990s(?). A few years later Berkshire Council was scrapped.

Told you that geography is easier!

Quote: "Berkshire still exists in legal from, its just that since the Mid-90s, it no longer has a County Council running things, its powers are now with LGAs"

What does this actually mean?

Over the years, Berkshire, Greater London and Middlesex all have had their councils scrapped. No county (except Fife) has a county council that coincides with its geographical boundaries.

What's the common denominator: every reorganisation sees the rates soar and services slashed.

Now back to LHR....

Quote: "Obviously my 'plan' has some flaws and parts of the M25 would have to be tunneled and most of the current south-side/T4/A30 demolished and rebuilt."

Looking at your map, FlyingEagle21, don't think that LHR-4 and the cargo area need to be demolished, indeed, with 2 rwys south of it, LHR-4 could actually be expanded.

Certainly parts of Stanwell centre would have to demished, and the wrath of the "Staines Moor Preservation Society" would have to be faced.

Alternatively, again looking at FlyingEagle21's map, a fourth rwy could go on open land west of Harmondsworth, crossing the M25, which would need to be tunnelised and/or diverted, as would the A4 north of Colnbrook.

That way, no reservoirs and no towns need to be demolished, which means a quicker completion date.

Quote: "I'm no civil engineer or urban planner but I still think this would be cheaper than a boris island."

Agreed, it's clearly got to be a great deal cheaper!

On the other hand, FlyingEagle21's rwys could be moved south and slightly east, and do what all washing powders promise.........obliterate Staines.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The cost of staying where everyone knows the story and all the comms links (of all categories) are already in place, must be lower. For the folks that say they are going to be blighted by the noise - then agree some one-off compensation. It is far easier to pay them, than to build on mud in an estury!"

Exactly, it's a lot cheaper too!

Quote: "When they come to sell, yes their house prices will be lower than before due to the expanded LHR but they will have been compensated. Or their house prices will remain high due to the expanded LHR."

Not so, house prices around LHR are among the highest in the country, irrespective of the presence of the flightpath. If any residents had to move to the area today, most of us would not be able to afford it!

[FlyingEagle21]

PAXboy Set yourself up as a Consultant and start pitching ideas. All the people talking about the problems of expanding LHR and the folks proposing various fantasies - don't talk about the extra cost of going elsewhere.

I am part of a group lobbying for greater aviation development (Ideally the best options) from a well known organisation.

Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!

it's either LHR all out expansion (3+ RWY's) or nothing. Any other ideas may increase London's capacity but will remove any hub status. By the time any island is built I think the bus would have left..

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!"

Got the impression that LHR-4/cargo area had to for the rwys. These are quite different reasons, and your point is taken.

Quite like LHR-4, wouldn't call it "****e", although appreciate your point about realignment.

[Skipness One Echo]

Fairdealfrank Before I started flying Scarebuses I worked Ramp/Cargo LHR. The cargo infrastructure needs to go! A lot of wasted space and temporary buildings from the 60's still in use! T4 is a heap of ****e, more toast racks!
It's in the wrong place and not opitimised for space. There was a proposal I am sure from BAA to close T4 as part of developing the are between 27R/09L and the third runway.

[DaveReidUK]

BAA's initial submission to the commission is now posted on their website:

http://mediacentre.heathrowairport.com/imagelibrary/downloadmedia.ashx?MediaDetailsID=1105&SizeId=-1

[Dannyboy39]

The merger with Iberia gives British Airways an alternative European hub in Madrid at which to grow.

I very much doubt it, even in good financial times.

[Skipness One Echo]

The growth is not at BA per se, they feed IB and vice versa. It works well for both airlines.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "The growth is not at BA per se, they feed IB and vice versa. It works well for both airlines."

The two carriers certainly have a complementary route structure!

[DaveReidUK]

From a surprising source, reproduced in full (long post):

"The two existing runways at Heathrow are longer than and twice as wide as required. By extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more. This would allow the simultaneous use of each runway, the first part being used for landing whilst, at the same time, the second part is used for take-offs.

The four segments of the runways can be of different lengths to accommodate varying aircraft requirements and a large section in the middle will be the “safe zone”, to accommodate over-runs etc. Further amelioration of safety concerns can be introduced such as using the left side of the runway for landing and the right side for take-offs, high speed turn-offs and operational procedures.

The significant increase in landing and take-off slots will provide expansion for decades to come and, for some considerable time, will provide operational flexibility to allow non-mixed mode for periods of the day which will provide some noise relief.

One further advantage would be available for the early morning arrival bulge. As there are no departures, the second part of the runway could be used for landings. This would serve to further reduce the arrival noise footprint at a troublesome time by moving it westwards for the majority of arrivals.

There do not appear to be any regulations which would preclude the adoption of this suggestion.

The intermediate approach height of aircraft into Heathrow currently has a base of 4,000ft. This can be raised to approximately 7,000ft. This alone will reduce the noise levels for a large part of London.

The approach slope to Heathrow can then be divided into two segments. The first, steeper segment, will start at 7,000ft and be at approximately five or six degrees as opposed to the current three degrees.

The steeper slope will translate into a normal three degree slope at approximately 1,500ft. This gradual transition will ensure that the stabilised approach gate required by many airlines at 1,000ft will be achieved.

This will mean that the aircraft engines will be close to idle power and by changing the operating procedures, the drag features of the aircraft can be spoilers/speed brakes which are located on the top side of the wing which reflects the noise upwards, rather than large flap settings and undercarriages which send noise downwards.

This should preferably be an autopilot flown procedure although this is not essential.

Additional electronic guidance will need to be provided, using microwave landing systems (already installed at Heathrow) and/or GPS.

For a number of reasons, overall safety levels will be improved by the adoption of this procedure, in addition to the reduction in noise.

Modern guidance systems, such as MLS or GPS allow curved approaches to be flown although they are more difficult to integrate into the long established air traffic control procedures. By adopting the use of curved lateral approaches with the two segment vertical approaches, further noise mitigation can be achieved.

Once the intermediate approach height is raised for approaches, steeper initial climbouts are also possible. This, too, would also significantly reduce noise, except for those under the immediate take-off path (1-2 miles from the airport)."

Does anyone know whether this is a serious proposal, or simply mischief-making from someone with too much time on his hands?

[Norman.D.Landing]

Those Concorde pilots uh? :oh:

[DaveReidUK]

Those Concorde pilots uh?

Former BA CP, in fact, which makes the huge holes in his proposal all the more surprising.

For a start "extending both existing runways to the west, towards but not as far as the M25, the length of both runways can be 20,000ft or more" is a physical impossibility.

Extending either of the 27s to 20,000' would take them way beyond the M25, and in the case of 27L would end up in the middle of Wraysbury reservoir.

[Fairdealfrank]

Interesting idea, but it still involves reservoir demolition (and demoltion of Stanwellmoor village in the case of 10R/27L).

Wouldn't there be some serious safety considerations somewhere in the middle of the extended rwys?

Even if it is possible, would it not only double capacity if segregated mode was abandoned?

How would the prospect of permanent mixed mode go down with flightpath residents?

For example on westerlies:

landing on the eastern 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R
taking off on the western 10,000 ft of 27L and 27R

and vice versa on easterlies.

If segregated mode is retained, there is no point!

[bermudatriangle]

just start the expansion now.if heathrow was in china it's capacity would be doubled in 12 months !!
the UK economy is on a knife edge,get the construction jobs going,relocate the odd villager or two,with suitable compensation and we can have an airport to rival the best in the world.
sadly,i know this will not happen,yet another opportunity missed by UK PLC.
lets just sit back and watch all our near neighbours benefit from the huge expansion in air travel.rant over !

[Aero Mad]

If we're going down this route, can somebody please explain this? What's the advantage of:

--------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------

over

------------------------------ -----------------------------

------------------------------ -----------------------------

[johnnychips]

---

---

:}

[FlyingEagle21]

BBC News - PM to crack down on 'time-wasting' appeals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20389297)


On Twitter, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith criticised Mr Cameron, writing: "So the same PM whose dithering on airports will cost 3-6 years is now enraged by the delays affecting big infrastructure decisions?"

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "just start the expansion now.if heathrow was in china it's capacity would be doubled in 12 months !!
the UK economy is on a knife edge,get the construction jobs going,relocate the odd villager or two,with suitable compensation and we can have an airport to rival the best in the world.
sadly,i know this will not happen,yet another opportunity missed by UK PLC.
lets just sit back and watch all our near neighbours benefit from the huge expansion in air travel.rant over !"

Good rant, bermudatriangle!



Quote: ""On Twitter, Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith criticised Mr Cameron, writing: "So the same PM whose dithering on airports will cost 3-6 years is now enraged by the delays affecting big infrastructure decisions?""

Same as Boris a while back, it's a bit late for these chaps to be so concerned about delays in airport expansion. They should have stiffened Dave's backbone and resolve by strongly backing Heathrow expansion.

Instead, their grandstanding has has scared the hell out of Dave, hence the renewed vision of long grass and the deafening sound of the can being kicked even further down the street.




BBC News - PM to crack down on 'time-wasting' appeals (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20389297)


Interestingly in this piece, Dave mentions the 1940s.

"Mr Cameron drew a historical analogy, saying: "When this country was at war in the '40s, Whitehall underwent a revolution.

"Normal rules were circumvented. Convention was thrown out. As one historian put it, everything was thrown at 'the overriding purpose' of beating Hitler.

"Well, this country is in the economic equivalent of war today - and we need the same spirit. We need to forget about crossing every 't' and dotting every 'i' - and we need to throw everything we've got at winning in this global race."

What Churchill did was to run a command economy very sucessfully. It is the only case of anyone making a command economy work.

Ironically, many Communist countries tried it (before and after the 1940s), but only a Conservative Prime Minister could make it work!

Is Dave really suggesting that we go down this route once again?

[DaveReidUK]

Even if it is possible, would it not only double capacity if segregated mode was abandoned?

How would the prospect of permanent mixed mode go down with flightpath residents?

Well technically it's neither segregated mode (separate runways for arrivals and departures) nor mixed mode (interspersed arrivals and departures on the same runway).

In fact I don't think a term has ever been invented for landing and taking off simultaneously on the same runway - "aircraft carrier mode", perhaps ?

[bcn_boy]

Cant we just concrete over the Costwolds or somewhere around Marlow, where few people live apart from the super wealthy and a few farmers, build the four runways or six with no major population impact? Having been woken up again this morning at 5:30am by aircraft landing at LHR (I dont live under the flight path but look on to it), it can only be a good thing to move this west and slighty north of London. My days of being a fan of LHR are fast dwindling and common sense dictates that it is in the wrong position and needs to be rebuilt elsewhere. 3million people in West London and the surroundings are suffering..

[Aero Mad]

Cant we just concrete over the Costwolds

Wolds = hills

few people live apart from the super wealthy

super wealthy ≈ super powerful ≈ friends of PM/Cabinet ministers


Summary: not going to happen.

[bcn_boy]

I know aero Mad, there was a strong undertone of sarcasm in my message. Although, the hills could be flattended quite easily, but getting the rich to either cough up money and agree to a proposal that would effect them is the difficult part.

[Skipness One Echo]

Cant we just concrete over the Costwolds or somewhere around Marlow
I used to live in Marlow, it's beautiful. It would be a crime to destroy that, in the same way it would be a shame to destroy the green areas around STN.

Are you really 72 and have lived near LHR all that time? It's been there since 1947, you've had plenty of opportunity to move if you felt so strongly. Today's traffic compares well to B707s / VC10s and regular Tridents surely.

[bcn_boy]

Sorry Skipi, but to suggest to everybody to move away from anywhere near LHR who do not agree with its expansion or the crushing aircraft noise is unacceptable at best. It is not quite as easy as moving.

[DaveReidUK]

Today's traffic compares well to B707s / VC10s and regular Tridents surely.

In terms of noise per movement, yes.

In terms of numbers of movements - just over 250K ATMs in 1972, almost double that now.

[DaveReidUK]

Which part of London do you live in?

If that question is addressed to me - I live in the little-known London borough of Reading, as per my sig. :)

Personally, having worked all my life in the aviation industry, I rarely notice aircraft noise, apart from early mornings on easterlies, but I'm prepared to accept that a lot of people do.

My point was simply that it's generally accepted that noise nuisance has two components: how much noise aircraft make, and how often they make it.

Those are, after all, the parameters that go into the computation of the published noise contour maps.

[FlightPathOBN]

Being in the business, I can certainly notice the changes, and the different noises. A few years ago, when the first Airbus A320's started coming into SEA, noise complaints increased dramatically. It didnt help that this was about the same time that the third runway opened, so people were blaming the increased noise on increased traffic, not the ac.

As noted before, the approach to KSEA, due to airspace, has a very defined location for a drop from 9000 to 6000. Depending on the ac, (especially the 320) this is a huge noise generator...and the public took notice.

Having worked with the noise gathering data at SEA and PDX, the models used for the calculations leave quite a bit to be desired, basically leaving out noise reflective issues such as vegetation, prevailing winds, inversion/marine layers as well as aircraft type/configuration settings.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "No, I mean bcn_boy, I suspect the poor guy rented in Hounslow on day when they were landing on 09L....."

..... and taking off on 09R and doing noise abatement turns over Hounslow, Whitton, Sunbury.

Quote: "I have friends who have lived all their days in Richmond and don't noice anymore, in my experience, it is the incomers (from Barcelona I wonder?) who kick up the biggest fuss. It's part and parcel of London life I'm afraid."

Indeed, anyone who has lived under the flightpath for a long time will appreciate how much quieter (and cleaner) today's aircraft are compared to the early jets of the late 1950s and 1960s.

Some may say "not quiet enough" and/or "not quickly enough", but progress is being made, and by the time the rwy(s) are built, quieter aircraft such as the B787, B747-8 and A350 will be in service.

To a large extent it is the incomers who kick up the biggest fuss, and they tend to live a fair distance from Heathrow: there appears to be much more moaning from the residents of Clapham and Putney, for example, than from those in Cranford, on the 27R threshold.

[FlightPathOBN]

Especially now they can complain online...
it appears that 99% of complaints come from the same 5 people...

[matt_0445]

US to start CLT-LHR, guess that means the end for LGW.

US Airways | We?re adding service to London Heathrow (http://www.usairways.com/en-US/travelplanning/planning/destinations/charlotte_to_heathrow.html)

[Skipness One Echo]

US to start CLT-LHR, guess that means the end for LGW.
I would think so, surprised it has lasted so long. It's still bookable, the usual form is to run both in tandem then realise that the LHR route performs much better and in detriment to the existing LGW service. CO LGW-EWR and LGW-IAH, US LGW-PHL and NW LGW-DTW also lasted one season after saying they would maintain LGW once they got into LHR.

Was past the BA Engineering Base on Sunday and noticed the engine run pen has been dismantled and is being re-built somewhat larger. I would imagine the old one wasn't A380 ready!

[bcn_boy]

Thank you for all the condesending comments. Much appreciated! I have lived in the same part of London for 20 years, I overlook the flight path, not directly under it and it is getting busier and noisier as the years go by. 777's and 747's being the loudest of them all. Like I said in my earlier posts, I have been a fan of LHR but it is now at a point which its effect on on residents of West London is very detrimental. We need a new airport in a new position away from heavily built up areas and if that means 'moving' LHR then so be it. CDG, AMS and MUC, all major hubs that have very little overfly of Urban areas. FRA has the same constrints as LHR now, although it has more runways, it is limited in its operating times. All new airports being built are sensilbly put away from large populations.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Thank you for all the condesending comments. Much appreciated! I have lived in the same part of London for 20 years, I overlook the flight path, not directly under it and it is getting busier and noisier as the years go by. 777's and 747's being the loudest of them all. Like I said in my earlier posts, I have been a fan of LHR but it is now at a point which its effect on on residents of West London is very detrimental. We need a new airport in a new position away from heavily built up areas and if that means 'moving' LHR then so be it. CDG, AMS and MUC, all major hubs that have very little overfly of Urban areas. FRA has the same constrints as LHR now, although it has more runways, it is limited in its operating times. All new airports being built are sensilbly put away from large populations."

Don't think my comments are condescending, but if the cap fits.....

Have to say that there is a world of difference between the noise of a B747 and a B777! The latter is much quieter and the former is being phased out.

It's not so easy to "move" Heathrow, and even if it was, it's long term operation. More hub capacity is needed now, not in 20 years time.

[Skipness One Echo]

'No ifs. No buts. Heathrow must have a third runway' | Spectator Events | The Spectator (http://aviation.spectator.co.uk/)

I am going, it may be fun. If any board members are tempted,do say hi.

[DaveReidUK]

When this was first announced, there were no details of who was speaking apart from a reference to "Boris's right-hand man" (Daniel Moylan), but I see that most of the others have now been identified:

For the motion
Graham Brady: MP for Altrincham and Sale West
Jon Moulton: Chair of Better Capital and Founder Alchemy Partners
Tim Yeo: MP for South Suffolk and Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee

Against the motion
Daniel Moylan: Mayor's adviser on aviation
John Stewart: Chair of HACAN ClearSkies Campaign group
AN Other

JM is Guernsey-based, so it looks like it's London vs the rest of the country. :O

I am going, it may be fun.

I imagine will be, must see if there are any tickets still available.

[adfly]

From end of March next year Bilbao is dropping from 2 daily to 1 and a daily flight to the popular high end business destination of Palma is being launched. ;)

From the same time US Airways are to launch a daily flight to Charlotte complimenting the current Philadelphia service. It is thought but not yet confirmed that it will replace the long running LGW service, although both remain on sale currently.

[Fairdealfrank]

Is John Stewart the one who lives miles from LHR and nearer LCY?

Will Daniel Moylan will be listing ways of spending someone else's peoples money? Does he have a lot of experience in the aviation industry?

Tim Yeo should be interesting, he's changed his mind over the years so probably has an insight on both sides of the arguments, particularly because he is Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.


Could you please let us know how it goes, Skipness?

[Seljuk22]

UA want to start a 3rd daily flight to IAH next summer.

[DaveReidUK]

Is John Stewart the one who lives miles from LHR and nearer LCY?

AFAIK, JS (who is always an entertaining speaker) lives in Stockwell, which is about 12nm out, between the 27L and 27R approaches.

But I think you're right in that Stockwell also gets LCY arriving traffic overhead, when on easterlies.

Not sure what your point is, though.

[Skipness One Echo]

Was an interesting evening all in.
'No ifs. No buts. Heathrow must have a third runway' | Spectator Events | The Spectator (http://aviation.spectator.co.uk/)

Graham Brady MP (near MAN) opened for the motion, eight minutes on the points we all know and love, nothing electrifying.
Andy Slaughter MP was up next to speak against. Two key take outs were he was against the building of Terminal 4and the "greed" of BAA and he wanted a quick review to look at other options.
Tim Yeo MP made a good case from a global and business perspective.
John Stewart was up next, quite the local campaigner he came across as an honest fellow with the best of intentions. He focussed again on other options like Stansted, essentially saying we should look at them again. He was however a disappointing speaker.
Jon Moulton (linked to Aurigny) gave the best speech IMHO, very pragmatic and touched on some key points about hub connectivity.
The biggest cheers and laughs were for Daniel Moylan, he works for Boris and frankly is a virtual clone. People loved him but he was the only one on the panel aside from an undecided John Stewart who maintained LHR would remain if Fantasy Island was built. Daniel stated his Island would be open 7 years after 2015. With a straight face.

Best point was from chairman Andrew Neil who said Crossrail being approved was a story he broke at the Sunday Times in 1986! Go compare that to seven years.
When the audience were invited to chip in, a chap from LGW plc had a big speech prepared about how LGW wasn't allowed to compete with LHR due to regulations. I don't know either...... He was stopped mid flow.

However there was almost nothing from a commercial side, on what the airlines thought and almost everyone mixed up airport capacity with hub connectivity (!) The politicians seemed intent as ever on spending money they would not have to raise themselves, there was little commercial savvy or market economics from most of the panel aside from Jon.

I did get the last question from the audience however. I congratulated Mr Moylan on a witty speech but pointed out tens of thousands of blue collar workers would unemployed when LHR closed. Indeed he didn't even try to come back on pretending LHR would remain to serve West London's high end leisure flights. No one bought that one first time round.

The motion was narrowly defeated alas, as much of the audience was pretty much well to do West London. I thought Andrew Neil would have been taller.....

[Fairdealfrank]

Thanks for the update, Skipness, much appreciated.

Pleasantly surprised it was a only a narrow defeat, would have expected it to be a landslide.

No matter how much sense is spoken and no matter how many facts are given, people have pre-concieved ideas and will not be moved. That's one reason why Tim Yeo's contribution should have been of interest: he's actually changed his mind.

BTW, what did Jon Moulton have to say? Am interested in the "pragmatism" part.

[Skipness One Echo]

Willie Walsh rules out third runway at Heathrow - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/aviation/9717087/Willie-Walsh-rules-out-third-runway-at-Heathrow.html)
I think the BMI purchase has given him some time but long term they're still screwed.

BTW, what did Jon Moulton have to say? Am interested in the "pragmatism" part.
He said the truth is that a third runway would mean a fourth, which is the truth.
A fourth Terminal would mean a Fifth, "Good Heavens no way, we'll stop at four, trust me" sayeth the BAA in the 80s.

[cornishsimon]

Probably why BA havnt pulled the plug on the LGW operation


cs

[Fairdealfrank]

Interesting article, Skipness One Echo, particularly the poll on LHR expansion:

"Yes, it is essential for Britain's economy 61.93% (501 votes)"
"No, Britain can survive without a third runway 38.07% (308 votes)"

It's completely the opposite sentiment to most of those expressed in the comments.

Clearly Britain can survive without a third runway, but will it prosper in the long term?

[Jack1985]

new daily Florence route with Vueling from 31 March 2013. Bookable now.

[Seljuk22]

QR will introduce the B787 from 13th December
Press Release | Qatar Airways (http://www.qatarairways.com/global/en/press-release.page?pr_id=pressrelease_pressrelease_20121127&locale_id=en_gl)

DL will fly 3 times a day to ATL from 31st March
Delta Air Lines Newsroom - News Archive (http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1810)

[Peter47]

From their on line timetable they appear to have shifted three weekly frequencies from DTW to ATL reducing the service to daily so no change in overall departures from LHR.

[Evey_Hammond]

Wonder how busy the surrounding area will be around 11am on Thursday for the arrival of QR's 787? :ok:

[green granite]

According to the Sunday Times the powers that be are considering mandating a 5.5º glide-slope to cut the noise footprint down.

[sleeper]

Not believing for any minute that that is true, it would eliminate all heavy and most of medium jets from LHR.

[Lord Spandex Masher]

That's why the noise will be less!

[TDK mk2]

And no CAT II/III for whatever is left. Probably only affect for a dozen or so days of the year...

[DaveReidUK]

According to the Sunday Times the powers that be are considering mandating a 5.5º glide-slope to cut the noise footprint down.

The proposition is being attributed to NATS' CEO ...

[fox niner]

Why not turn heathrow into a huge heliport? 90 degree glide slopes are the way to the future.
I foresee this thread to be moved to the rotorheads forum....

[Heathrow Harry]

assuming they've fixed the fuel system..............

[A and C]

My guess is that this would be for the third runway that will be built to the north of the current airport, this will be as a result of the canceling of the HS2 project that has been found to be economically unviable following the disclosure of secret government documents that were released following court proceedings last week.

For those outside the UK HS2 is a proposed high speed rail link between London and Birmingham.

[BobnSpike]

If true, that's around 1300 ft/min descent at 140 kts groundspeed. It's also 2 degrees out of limits for my Cat II/III ops. Might work for some turboprops and light GA but I rather doubt many jets will be flying it.

[aviate1138]

"According to the Sunday Times....."

Anything written by a journo is likely to be hysterical cr*p rather than fact. Selling newspapers using triggers via Global Warming, Fear of Flying, Aliens etc is far more important than accuracy of information. :rolleyes:

[ETOPS]

Actually this would work just fine. Take a look at the "steep approach" button on the A318 panel. For London City ops this is selected and allows for the even steeper glidepath there by automatically deploying the speedbrakes during the descent. An extra callout "Flare" is triggered to give the PF a clue when to raise the nose......

No doubt modern types could be modified accordingly.

[blue up]

Change "degrees" to "percent" and it might make sense. 5.5 percent is about 3.25 degrees, innit?

[SLFandProud]

Such a charitable view of other professions.
Another load of complete bollox promulgated by an ignorant, ill-informed bunch of incompetent d1ckheads employed by an even bigger d1ckhead.
I didn't see "Ryanair Pilot" in his byline, though.


(Perhaps you can see what I did there; I suspect it will whoosh over your head though...)

[green granite]

Bengerman, comments such as yours have no place in a forum such as this.

[Hambleite]

My mate was on that flight. Apparently someone found dead, police questioning pax and bloke sitting next to dead man led away. Probably rubbish knowingmy source.

[fjencl]

Avion Express is recruiting Airbus A320 pilots and cabin crew for a longer term contract for scheduled operations based in London Heathrow, starting on March 2013........does anybody know who they are going to be operating for ????

Obviously its not Virgin as EI is going to be doing that operation

Just wondered if anybody in the know at LHR knows.............

[DaveReidUK]

My understanding is that Avion, having failed in their bid for the VS contract, are no longer recruiting.

[fjencl]

Oh ok, you would think they wOuld have removed the vacancies from airline agency and there own web sites, if that's the case.

[globetrotter79]

It is being reported that the new T2 will be home to Star Alliance, Aer Lingus and the Virgin domestic flights from 2014 with T1 then to be demolished and replaced with a second phase of the new T2 development.

I wonder where this will leave the ex-bmi domestic operations? Certainly, one assumes, that the ex-bmi european ops will move to T3 to co-locate with BA's other operations there; but (correct me if wrong) there is no domestic facility at T3. Will BA, therefore, run down the ex-bmi domestic operations or do they think they'll be able to fit in T5? Or maybe BA will continue to be split over three terminals (T5, T3 and the likes of DUB, BHD, LBA etc in T2)

[pabely]

Are their not long term plans for T2C, get rid of T3 then T5A+, T5D & T5E?

[Heathrow Harry]

Heathrow: Rebuilding Heathrow Airport (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/rebuilding-heathrow)

Terminal 1

Some £60 million has been invested in improving your journey through Terminal 1. We also have plans to replace the building completely around 2019 and until then our team are proud to welcome you to their terminal, home of the Star Alliance.
Terminal 2

The new Terminal 2 opens in 2014 – the latest step in the transformation of Heathrow. It has been designed from the outset with the needs of the individual passenger at its heart and with sustainability as a guiding principle.
See what Heathrow's new Terminal 2 will be like (http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/rebuilding-heathrow/heathrow%27s-new-terminal-2)

Terminal 3

Terminal 4


Terminal 4 is now home to 45 airlines, and has a new, fresh look in the security screening area and new accommodation for A380 aircraft. Our work on Terminal 4 is not yet complete.


Terminal 5

We are committed to making the journey for our Terminal 5 passengers even better with the recent introduction of an extension to the facility. This new satellite building provides an additional 12 aircraft piers for Terminal 5, minimising the time you spend transferring to and from your flight and taxiing to the runway.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Are their not long term plans for T2C, get rid of T3 then T5A+, T5D & T5E?"

Interesting, is "T5A+" an extension? Think LHR-5D is on the cards (fire station may have to move). For LHR-5E, parts of LHR-3 will have to be demolished.

Alternatively, if the underground transit is extended to LHR-3, all the satelites and new ones nearer to LHR-3 could be used from both terminals, making Oneworld transfers a whole lot easier.

If there is to be no LHR-3 in the longterm master plan, maybe it, along with LHR-1, will be rebuilt north of the Bath Road (A4).

[Skipness One Echo]

In which direction would T5A be extended?

[NWSRG]

Are these terminal proposals based on a published document?

I think T5D was always in the long term development plan...as was T2C, but the next step was to realign the pier currently leading to the Control Tower (pier 7?) in a north-south direction. T5E and T2D might make sense, but surely in the very long term.

[FlyingEagle21]

I believe after the current T2A and T2B all LHR redevelopment has been put on hold. No point spending hundreds of millions on a new T1 and T3 and extension of T5 when the future of LHR is in doubt...

[crewmeal]

What's going on in terminal 3 arrivals? Went there to meet my other half. approached LHR 15.00, arrived at the gate 15.30, met at the arrivals hall 16.45. Immigration was hell, someone describing it as worse than the 1st day of the sales. Is this the norm or a one off? Surely some werious questions need to be asked about the infrastructure of LHR before even thinking of a 3rd runway.

A total disgrace.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "What's going on in terminal 3 arrivals? Went there to meet my other half. approached LHR 15.00, arrived at the gate 15.30, met at the arrivals hall 16.45. Immigration was hell, someone describing it as worse than the 1st day of the sales. Is this the norm or a one off? Surely some werious questions need to be asked about the infrastructure of LHR before even thinking of a 3rd runway.

A total disgrace."

Isn't this a border control (i.e. Home office) issue rather than an airport management one?

Wasn't it supposed to be sorted out MONTHS ago?

What does it have to do with the issue of a third rwy?

What does it say about the UK?


Agree that it is a disgrace and not nearly good enough!

[crewmeal]

What does it have to do with the issue of a third rwy?

I would have thought that was obvious. If the terminals can't cope with 2 runways, how are they going to cope with extra flights using a 3rd runway. Or is the idea for it just to ease the flow and cut down the amount of holding that aircraft have to do?

[edi_local]

A 3rd runway won't mean more people, it will just mean more space for planes to land or take off. The same number of gates will exist, the same number of terminals will exist, which will handle the same number of passengers, so really a 3rd runway and immigration waiting times are not really connected.

The only thing which would make a real change would be airlines bringing bigger, fuller planes in to LHR.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I would have thought that was obvious. If the terminals can't cope with 2 runways, how are they going to cope with extra flights using a 3rd runway. Or is the idea for it just to ease the flow and cut down the amount of holding that aircraft have to do?"

As mentioned above it's a border control issue. There isn't the same problem at departures, where the airport management is responsible for security.

If the Home Office does't get it's act together, no end of terminal/rwy capacity will make any difference. It certainly does not create a good impression for arriving pax!

At present (plse note, at present) the terminal capacity is more than adequate at Heathrow, rwy capacity obviously isn't.

[FlightPathOBN]

We are building 10 lane freeways in the sky, that end up at a 2 car garage...

[DaveReidUK]

A 3rd runway won't mean more people, it will just mean more space for planes to land or take off.

So a third runway, which will be able to accommodate around 220,000 additional ATMs per year, won't actually shift more passengers than at present ?

Novel idea.

[queenvic]

Flight will be 3 times a week from 22nd September 2013

ccording to business traveller magazine the flight schedule is :

BA089 LHR 15:30 CTU 08:55 777 247

BA088 CTU 10:55 LHR 15:00 777 135

Flights will operate on a four class 777

[Skipness One Echo]

Seems American are dropping LHR-BOS with BA adding an additional daily service taking it up to four daily on 2 x B744 and 2 x B772.

[Seljuk22]

AM launched their twice-weekly flights to MEX last week and plans to operate B787 on this route later in 2013.

UA to introduce B787 on IAH-LHR from 1st March.

US moves its daily CLT flights (A333) from LGW to LHR starting next summer.

AA to reduce JFK-LHR from 5 to 4 daily from summer but will introduce B77W from 9th May.

Virgin Atlantic to start 6 daily flights to EDI from April 5th and 3 daily flights to ABZ from April 9th. 3 daily flights to MAN will start in April, too. All flights operaetd by A320 (leased from EI).

CA to intrduce B77W on PEK-LHR from 15th May.

[ArtfulDodger]

Sad News From Heathrow as ex BAA CIO Philp Langsdale passes away at 56.

Full story here - Sad News From Heathrow as ex CIO Philp Langsdale passes away: BAA « The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-FI)

[Planeaddict]

Video I took of BA landing at LHR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8mm5wqkdKk

[hampshireandy]

Thats easily the most exciting video ive seen since breakfast(and i had a late breakfast)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Planeaddict... Re: The comment on Youtube "the plane was constantly turning (presumably due to the airport being congested as usual)" . Even when the airport is very busy, the tracks flown during the approach are pretty standard although they are radar controlled so there may be slight variations. Constantly turning possible relates to being in a holding pattern but the aircraft would straighten out between turns.

[DaveReidUK]

Thats easily the most exciting video ive seen since breakfast (and i had a late breakfast)

This one is more interesting:

Watch Paint Dry - YouTube

[No RYR for me]

Video I took of BA landing at LHR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8mm5wqkdKk

Is this PSRUNE? Like in Plane Spotters Rumours Network.... Is there not a planepotters site who would be wildly enthusiastic about these movies... When I am off I try to forget boring landings as that is called work... :rolleyes:

[Skipness One Echo]

Hello planeaddict, there's a thread in Spectators Balcony for this sort of thing. This isn't really the best place as I am sure you've worked out by now....

[CabinCrewe]

Not welcome is a little harsh. Not in the appropriate place is far more reasonable.
Seems some have taken on a moderator role...? :hmm:

[johnnychips]

Let's get back to planes. No doubt people in London and the South find LHR the most convenient airport because of accessibility, and will endlessly continue using it, do idiot northerners and Scottish people like me hear so much bad publicity, we wouldn't even consider it when we could go through so many more convenient (? perceived - I thought Frankfurt was awful) hubs? Yes, I know we're not as rich and as many.

Oh and that's not considering price either.

[Fairdealfrank]

That's unneccessarily rude! What's idiotic about "northerners"?

[johnnychips]

I'm one, and its best to put a front up sometimes! :ok: Noticed I reverted to 'we' instead of 'they' in post as well.

And Frankfurt was the sh*ttiest transfer I've ever had. Twice. Trouble is, Zurich, Munich and Amsterdam are great from MAN. Not tried ME yet.

[adfly]

I'm not even going to start to explain the stupidity of this idea, the politicians involved are beyond stupid. Tax rise at Heathrow and Gatwick 'will force flyers to use provincial airports' | World news | The Observer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/dec/29/tax-rise-heathrow-gatwick-airports) :ugh:

[Libertine Winno]

I agree with this bit;

"According to the Department for Transport's economic modelling, increasing the duty by 50% on flights out of Heathrow would see the number of passengers flying from the airport fall by around 22%",

It is this bit that is wrong;

"with travellers switching to other airports in the south-east and the Midlands. The analysis suggests passenger numbers at Stansted, would increase by 20% and by 25% at Luton by 2020."

Travellers will certainly switch, but they will switch to places with the requisite HUB CAPACITY e.g. AMS, CDG or FRA, not LTN or STN!

[pwalhx]

And how would they get to AMS, FRA or CDG? Maybe from Luton, Stansted, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds etc. Or maybe it would encourage airlines that have dithered over routes from the regions to acyaully consider those direct links now.

[Libertine Winno]

But how exactly is forcing every UK pax to transfer via a European hub instead of our own beneficial in any way to the UK?!

It never ceases to amaze me how keen some of our politicians are to get rid of one of the world's busiest & most profitable airports from right on our doorstep!

[Dannyboy39]

.... because they don't know anything about the economics of aviation?! Like Joe Public.

[pwalhx]

The premise that everyone in the U.K. wants to fly via Heathrow to use a British carrier to benefit the U.K. economy is flawed. Have you also considered that overseas visitors flying via these European hubs to airports outside of the South East may also boost the British economy. Does inward tourism to the regions not get a boost by direct flights in to those regions.
It is a two way street, and I know it is a hackneyed argument to some, but then I am a care worn Northerner and am past caring about such sensibilities, so I will repeat that not everyone wants to fly from London some of us prefer to use our local airports and if foreign carriers rather than British carriers allow us to do so then thank you to those airlines.
Maybe the reason it has just been published that LHR is 4th and MAN 8th in Etihad's top 10 routes or that MAN has more flights from the MEB3 than some European hubs tells a story that many agree with me.

[davidjohnson6]

I think all will agree that Heathrow is pretty much full - at least until a new runway is built. Unless LHR's major carriers deploy large numbers of widebodies on European shorthaul, the number of pax passing through LHR is not going to grow significantly before 2020

Therefore, encourage the air travel market to deploy some more capacity to UK regional airports. Connectivity to the world helps trade and improves the UK economy. Perhaps people travelling from Oxford to Munich could be encourahed to use Birmingham rather than Heathrow, saving Heathrow space for someone in London for whom Birmingham is a non starter ?

This idea is all about introducing a greater degree of economic price rationing so that space at Heathrow is used by those who value it most. If Heathrow had R3 this idea would never have been published

[Libertine Winno]

Distributing flights around the regions would be incredibly beneficial, I agree. However, the major flaw in that plan is that there is nothing stopping them doing that now,given that none are anywhere near capacity...and yet, all the airlines want to be at LHR.

Why? Because of hub connectivity. A large proportion of pax at LHR are transfer pax (as we know) and make routes viable that otherwise wouldn't be. This is the reason hub airports exist, and why all thr airlines all want to be at LHR, even though it would be cheaper to operate from elsewhere

[Skipness One Echo]

In the simplest sense, it genuinely frightens me that the people who are supposed to be running the country don't seem to understand the basics of how a market economy actually works. All they ever seem to come out with is mucking about with taxation....

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting that the paper originates from HMRC and not from the DfT:

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/research/report188.pdf

[pwalhx]

There is good reason to believe that reducing APD or even removing it would entice airlines to operate regional routes. I understand that Dublin got the nod over Manchester for some transatlantic traffic for example because of APD.

Heathrow will always be the focus of air traffic for the U.K. and I have no problem with that however there should be a middle ground that encourages more people to fly from the regions and at the same time allowing continued growth of LHR as 'the' hub.

However I don't think doubling APD from London is the answer, reducing it elsewhere is, however that's not what the government want as it looses them valuable revenue and there is the real problem it's too valuable a revenue stream for the government. They do not have the wit or intellect to realise that this tax is actually damaging not just a valuable industry in the airline business but tourism as well. Taken overall one wonders whether the revenue from APD brings more than that which is lost in both the tourism and airline industries. I suspect we could all make a reasoned guess on that.

[Libertine Winno]

@pwalhx

Exactly what I was about to say! Why do we always go with the stick and never the carrot in this country?! Increase tax on things we don't like (LHR, cars, alcohol etc) rather than decrease them on the alternatives we do like! Or, Heaven forbid, invest in the thing we want people to do, thus making it a viable alternative?!

[davidjohnson6]

The Govt is talking about raising APD at Heathrow rather than decreasing it elsewhere because the Govt is still spending far more than it receives in tax revenue. Or to put it another way, the country is still broke and the Govt needs to pay for the current economic mess. You've all seen what happened to Greece in the last few years.

The debate about increasing or decreasing public spending is a separate issue for another forum, but for the time being, with Heathrow being far more in demand than current runway capacity and partly regarded as the airport for the wealthier sections of society, the Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay.

[Libertine Winno]

I'm not sure people are arguing for a DEcrease at LHR, but rather against an INcrease. It would be more beneficial to decrease taxes at other airports which, if coupled with the airport owners discounting landing fees, seems a much better way of encouraging any airlines to use regional airports for marginal routes instead of LHR.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Interesting that the paper originates from HMRC and not from the DfT:"

Perhaps those aviation industry experts, HMRC, should not worry about taxes that others collect for them, such as income tax PAYE (employers), VAT (retailers) and APD (airlines), and concentrate instead on eliminating tax evasion.


Quote: "Chancellor is is no mood to decrease taxes from those who are perceived to be able to afford to pay."

Not always:
(1) 50% income tax rate reduced to 45%
(2) no APD for pax on private/business jets


Quote: "I'm not sure people are arguing for a DEcrease at LHR, but rather against an INcrease. It would be more beneficial to decrease taxes at other airports which, if coupled with the airport owners discounting landing fees, seems a much better way of encouraging any airlines to use regional airports for marginal routes instead of LHR"

People, certainly those in the industry who know about these things, ARE indeed arguing for a reduction in, or ending of, APD!

Decreasing APD at airports other than LHR will not address the lack of hub capacity there. That should be patently obvious.

[pwalhx]

By decreasing APD at airports outside the South East the aim would be to encourage more people and airlines to operate from the regions, and there is evidence to support the fact APD had discouraged some operators. This would therefore reduce the pressure on Heathrow.

[Libertine Winno]

Which is what I was arguing was a far better option than increasing APD at LHR i.e. carrot for the regions, rather than stick for LHR.

Of course if the aviation industry had its own way then the Government would agree to 4 runways at LHR and abolish APD all together, on the premsie that the associated increase in business and GDP would more than cover the loss in APD. But then that would presume we have a right wing laissez-faire government, rather than the leftist social one we apparently do.

[pwalhx]

Actually a third runway at heathrow to start with and reduction of APD in the regions would be a good start.

However, on the subject of lack of capacity at LHR, is there a lack of capacity or could the capacity be better distrubted, for example I believe I asked this question before without answer, do BA/AA need to operate the number of flights daily that they do between LHR/NYC. If they are all operating with a high LF then fine, but if they are not surely they can consolidate and or introduce larger aircraft such as the soon to arrive A380 and release slots for say Chinese services.

[WHBM]

do BA/AA need to operate the number of flights daily that they do between LHR/NYC. If they are all operating with a high LF then fine, but if they are not surely they can consolidate and or introduce larger aircraft such as the soon to arrive A380 and release slots for say Chinese services.I can assure you that the BA commercial team are no fools, and the multiple New York (both JFK and EWR) services operate with far better load factors and yield/aircraft/day than will ever be achieved in opening up operations to Chengdu, Lima, Durban, or any of the other places regularly trotted out as constrained only by Heathrow slots.

How many senior financiers, politicians, entertainment personalities, corporate leaders, or other high-yield pax travel per day to these places mentioned, compared to New York ?

[Heathrow Harry]

as pointed out in today's Times you won't get a lot o people traveling to/from China until we remove or relax the visa requirements - its much more expensive to get a UK visa than just about anywhere else in the EU

I'm sure that is a bigger incentive to UK-China trade than a few flights into LHR

[pwalhx]

Thank you gentleman you have confirmed what I suspected.

On a seprate note, knowing what I have to pay for my yearly visa for China, I suspect the same being true in reverse this is a good little earner for the exchequer.

[WHBM]

On a separate note, knowing what I have to pay for my yearly visa for China, I suspect the same being true in reverse this is a good little earner for the exchequer.
If you look at Chengdu, BA's new destination, all visa applications have to be submitted through an independent commercial company, acting as agent. This is a new concept in issuing UK visas overseas in recent years, and forms even more of a barrier to getting a visa than the previous approach of going to the Consulate. It is also a nice little earner for the various commercial companies who get "selected" to provide this service, giving good further income to well-connected former Foreign Office staff who take early retirement on their UK-funded pensions and then go into business providing this "service" for their erstwhile colleagues. I see, looking at some web pages, that all applications are forwarded by the agency to Beijing, rather than dealt with by the consular staff in the provincial cities (so you wonder what they do nowadays). You can imagine what this has done to processing time.

There is now a visa fee and a separate visa service company fee.

Remind me, somebody, just how much budget the various Embassies and Consulates around the world get from the UK government for providing consular services.

[Haven't a clue]

WHBM the use of a commercial organisation as an agent to accept visa applications and return travel documentation to the applicant is not unique to the UK - India and China do the same and the cost to the applicant, as pwalhx notes, is increased accordingly.

It's called outsourcing, and saves government money but at a greater cost to the service user.....

[Heathrow Harry]

Simialr problem with Russia - tit-for-tat on UK visa regs

I used to get mine outside the UK - Helsinki or Vienna were pretty good if you had the correct paperwork

[pwalhx]

As you may have guessed I am very familiar with obtaining visa's for China, you are correct you don't now go to the consulate but in fact to the China Visa Application Service Centres, which surprisingly are based in the same cities in the UK as the Embassy/Consulates i.e. London, Manchester and Edinburgh. If you go to one of these centres (as I do to the Manchester one) you will find they are staffed mainly by Chinese nationals with a few local employees.These are in fact a commercial arm of the Embassy/Consulate and the Visa is issued at these offices.

You can of course pay extra to an independent agency to go to these centres on your behalf.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Of course if the aviation industry had its own way then the Government would agree to 4 runways at LHR and abolish APD all together, on the premsie that the associated increase in business and GDP would more than cover the loss in APD. But then that would presume we have a right wing laissez-faire government, rather than the leftist social one we apparently do.

Agree with first part. To suggest that Dave's governmemt is "leftist" made me laugh!

As for the HMRC nonsense, it assumes that all destinations are available from ALL airports, or would be if APD was variable. That is where it falls down.

Quote: "I can assure you that the BA commercial team are no fools, and the multiple New York (both JFK and EWR) services operate with far better load factors and yield/aircraft/day than will ever be achieved in opening up operations to Chengdu, Lima, Durban, or any of the other places regularly trotted out as constrained only by Heathrow slots."

New York is an earner and must be maintained, but other new destinations could be the earners of the future, it's not "either/or" in the longterm, hence the need for LHR expansion.

Quote: "If you look at Chengdu, BA's new destination, all visa applications have to be submitted through an independent commercial company, acting as agent. This is a new concept in issuing UK visas overseas in recent years, and forms even more of a barrier to getting a visa than the previous approach of going to the Consulate. It is also a nice little earner for the various commercial companies who get "selected" to provide this service, giving good further income to well-connected former Foreign Office staff who take early retirement on their UK-funded pensions and then go into business providing this "service" for their erstwhile colleagues. I see, looking at some web pages, that all applications are forwarded by the agency to Beijing, rather than dealt with by the consular staff in the provincial cities (so you wonder what they do nowadays). You can imagine what this has done to processing time.

There is now a visa fee and a separate visa service company fee.

Remind me, somebody, just how much budget the various Embassies and Consulates around the world get from the UK government for providing consular services."

If we are looking at visa fees as just "a nice little earner" (to quote that great entrepreneur, Arthur Daley), then do what many other countries do for short-stay tourists from selected countries: visas on arrival, or include it in the cost in the ticket.

That way the administration of processing at each embassy and/or outsourcing fees to third parties is eliminated.

[Skipness One Echo]

Cathay Pacific adds fifth daily flight to London Heathrow (http://www.cathaypacific.com/cpa/en_GB/aboutus/pressroomdetails?refID=efafb4293beac310VgnVCM1000000ad21c39_ ___)

I'm sure many of you will have seen this but Cathay are stepping into the shoes of the departing Air New Zealand operation and launching a fifth daily LHR-HKG rotation. Oddly enough this one won't have First Class but will mean the whole CX B77W will now be seen at LHR. (* takes enthusiasts hat off again )

One wonders whether this might impact the medium term ambition to get back into the Manchester market?

[Aksai Oiler]

You can also arrive in Beijing visa free for 72 hours. I don't think this applies in Chengdu though. Can't say I have met anyone whom has tried it yet though. I will certainly be trying the new LHR-CTU service when it's up and running. It will cut several hours off my trips to CTU, but the fog in the winter months is a bugger. I tried to get to Chongqing in December, but Finnair cancelled the flight due to the weather.

Here in his-pan-hola, the government is offerring residence visas to non-eu citizens, whom purchase property over €160K, and are targeting Russians and the Chinese, specifically.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "You can also arrive in Beijing visa free for 72 hours. I don't think this applies in Chengdu though. Can't say I have met anyone whom has tried it yet though. I will certainly be trying the new LHR-CTU service when it's up and running. It will cut several hours off my trips to CTU, but the fog in the winter months is a bugger. I tried to get to Chongqing in December, but Finnair cancelled the flight due to the weather.

Read about this, AFAIK it applies to Shanghai and Canton as well, suspect it applies to the new Kangaroo route, making stopovers on that route as easy as they are on the traditional routes, SIN, BKK, HKG, etc.. Shrewd move! The UK needs to something similar for visitors from China, it's a potential goldmine.

Quote: "Here in his-pan-hola, the government is offerring residence visas to non-eu citizens, whom purchase property over €160K, and are targeting Russians and the Chinese, specifically."

That's not a lot actually, many home-owners under the LHR flightpath have that much equity on their properties when they've been there a few years (so much for "blight").

IIRC think John Major introduced something similar in the 1990s: anyone bringing in a certain amount (think it was £750,000) from outside the EU could obtain UK residency. Think it still applies, although probably uprated for inflation.

Most countries will let in the overseas rich, it's easy to understand why.

[LGS6753]

Heathrow plans to hike passenger charges (http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?c=setreg&region=2&m_id=s~_rvY!s~m&w_id=8695&news_id=2005130)

[Aero Mad]

I guess that's one way to get 'em using Schiphol.

[cjhants]

So - revenue is decreasing due to less pax and flights, so we put up charges to recover the shortfall in income, which results in less pax and flights etc etc. Sounds like a sound business plan?

[clicker]

BBC News - Heathrow Airport proposes 'to raise ticket prices' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21420761)

So according to this report by the BBC Heathrow management want to increase the passenger duty from £19.33 per passenger for 2012-13 up to a possible £27.30 in 2018-19.

Also they made the comment "Heathrow said the increased charges would pay for investment "

Perhap I'm getting to old but I thought that profits and investment was meant for this kind of thing, not fleecing the SLF again.

[Heathrow Harry]

and these are some of the people asking for APD to be reduced................

The Treasury must be in stitches :ugh::ugh:

[cjhants]

Call me old fashioned - but I thought shareholders and/or banks should raise the funds for this type of project, and if the project is successful, the shareholders get their payback by increased dividends or share price increase. If it fails, they lose out.
It seems all of the utilities (and LHR) want the end user to fund expansion and infrastructure projects and we just seem to go along with it without a whimper.

[Dannyboy39]

So how would a proposed T6, RWY3 and RWY4 be financed then? This plan isn't going to exactly win the hearts and minds is it? :mad:

People in big planning/transport jobs in high places earning big salaries, seem to be making an absolute pigs ear of marketing their plans to Joe Public at the moment. HS2 a prime example.

[FRatSTN]

Mmm, I wonder if the Stansted sale has anything to do with it???

To me this just confirms my views exactly on why BAA were clinging onto Stansted for so long! Now that Heathrow can no longer sponge off Stansted for finance, they urgently want price increases. Funny that really, they must think their customers are immensely stupid!

[Skipness One Echo]

Please stop peddling that nonsense about LHR being dependent on STN. It's laughable. Stansted was paid for by LHR profits, white elephant terminal and all. Nothing wrong with being pro your local airport but that one's off the planet.

LHR is already expensive but consider.
T5A/B/C and T2A/B all built and into service in a six year period. That's not too shabby ad capital investment goes.

[Aero Mad]

sponge off Stansted for finance

I genuinely can't work out whether you're joking or not, FRatSTN.

[stormin norman]

A few snow ploughs and a sensible snow plan would be a wiser investment.

[FRatSTN]

I was not implying Heathrow is DEPENDENT on Stansted. Clearly that is not the case! I was basically saying that Stansted's profits help out towards Heathrow's investments.

sponge off Stansted for finance

Again, of course not entirely, but it's extraordinarily unlikely that Stansted's profits have not been used to help pay for Heathrow's investments.

Stansted's pre-tax profits in 2011 amounted to £86.6 million and are estimated to be £94.2 million in 2012.
Stansted to be sold to Manchester Airports for £1.5bn - Business News - Business - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/stansted-to-be-sold-to-manchester-airports-for-15bn-8458405.html) (last sentence)

Let me clear some things up:



If Stansted's profit outlook looks positive, then why would BAA be needing to cross subsidise Stansted from Heathrow? Especially since it's Heathrow getting all the major investments.


Why else would BAA put up such as hard fight for 3 whole years to keep an airport that continued to decline under their management. The only other explanation is to purely retain profit. In that instance it would imply STN is too much of an asset to lose so that totally rules of the theory that it needs LHR to subsidise it.


If Stansted is a "white elephant terminal", then why did it's sale attract so much attention and why did MAG pay £1.5 billion for it?
I can't work out the conclusion that LHR pays for STN. If this were true, why on God's Earth would they spend 3 years fighting for STN if it couldn't even stand in its own 2 feet? They'd instead gladly get rid of it! And if STN is in sustained decline and a "white elephant", then they would also gladly get rid.

The only logical explanation is that the profits from STN were used to pay for LHR's investments, because let's face it, STN hasn't had and more to the point doesn't need nearly as much investment.

Due to reccession, spending gets tough so they double STN's charges purely to increase profit rather than promote growth and funding for LHR's extensive investments starts eating into STN's profits.

Now that BAA (or Heathrow Holdings Ltd.) can no longer do this, they suddenly want to increase Heathrow's charges. How odd!

[Skipness One Echo]

Actually it's not the "only" explanation, it's one of several. BAA would be anxious to prevent GIP and MAG giving long haul a toe hold at LGW and STN respectively. Of course this is not working out to GIP's plan at LGW and I think the risk is overstated at STN. No monopoly is ever willingly given up and BAA was no exception.

You may be right, Stansted my have helped pay for T2 and T5 at LHR, in the same way LHR paid for Norman Foster's terminal at STN. This was done by BAA at Group level and is common practice. Indeed MAN may well end up subsidising investment at STN via MAG. Not sure why you keep banging on at this point as if it wasn't common practice.

[FRatSTN]

As much as subsidising other airports in a monopoly maybe common practise, its fair to say that LHR and STN is an extreme case. It's very likely, almost definite for example that MAN is helping to pay for the £12 terminal investment at EMA, likewise the new terminal MAG built at BOH, but they are all much smaller scale.

No airports however in Europe, certainly in the UK, other than STN have been so severely exposed to the posibility of its owners using it to fund some of the largest, most complex and most ongoing investments in the industry at the largest international airport in the world.

Like you (Skipness One Echo) say, it's common practise for airport monopolies to do things to help subsidise investments, for instance, hike prices and cross subsidise developments. Ultimately, airport monopoloies are damaging to healthy competition and restrict growth for this reason.

Therefore, the general practice of cross-subsidising is not the issue here, since it is common practice. What's more the concern is the extent of it in this case since investment at LHR, unlike in most cases, is constant. In order for BAA to want such dramatic price increases at LHR now STN is being sold off really does say a lot about what STN really did for them! Because it certainly wasn't in their intentions to operate it as a fast growing, friendly, low-cost alternative gateway to London!!!

[Skipness One Echo]

investment at LHR, unlike in most cases, is constant.
Again this is mistaken. Investment at LHR ground to a halt pre T5. Money was spent on shops and the airport itself went to Hell in a handcart. T4 opened in 1984, after this BAA focussed on building Norman Foster's new airport, London's third at Stansted. The plan was for legacy carriers to move in and free up space at LHR. Indeed Air Canada had to go to court in the late 70s to prevent BAA kicking them out of LHR to STN !
Now the airlines told BAA they were not interested in paying more at LHR to subsidise a facility they had not asked for in Essex. BAA screwed them over anyway, STN was built, Air UK moved in and that was pretty much it until BAA gave it to Ryanair for next to nothing. As soon as that happened, the legacy market which had not really wanted to move, and having sampled STN in the form of SAS and LH moved right back to LHR and LGW. The STN market that came about was a new one driven by FR and EZY using a terminal that was far from Low Cost and was paid for by carriers at LHR and LGW. Now STN may now be profitable but don't go rewriting history and portraying a plucky little fighter up against the big guys as that's not what happened.

Whether the market wants a bigger STN we shall have to wait and see.
In order for BAA to want such dramatic price increases at LHR now STN is being sold off really does say a lot about what STN really did for them!
They're hiking prices because they can, and because they're no longer a group which can spread investment across the group over time. It's LHR now, that's rightly the focus. They've only had decent facilities again since 2008, T5 was a generational change allowing the redevelopment of the rest of the airfield, T2 is coming. Next to Crossrail this is one of the biggest construction sites in the UK. If you think profits from Ryanair at STN can pay for all of this, then I have to say I think you are quite wrong.

I like STN as an airport and I used to use it a lot when FR flew to where I wanted to go (!) I wish MAG well in making a return on their investment.
intentions to operate it as a fast growing, friendly, low-cost alternative gateway to London!!!
Except that this is exactly what they ended up doing with a based fleet of Ryanair, easyJet and lots of inbound Air Berlin, German Wings, Norwegian et al. I am sure MAG will aim to repeat that feat.

[FRatSTN]

If you think profits from Ryanair at STN can pay for all of this, then I have to say I think you are quite wrong.

Like already I said, of course STN profits don't pay for ALL this, but are used to help towards paying for LHR's investments! They will be using more than once source of finance to pay for it believe me!!!

Except that this is exactly what they ended up doing with a based fleet of Ryanair, easyJet and lots of inbound Air Berlin, German Wings, Norwegian et al. I am sure MAG will aim to repeat that feat.

Previously they did, but when push came to shove when the reccession starts, they double the charges (so how you can say it still is LCC friendly is beyond me!), STN passenger numbers sharply declined and have barely seen a month increase since.

It's LHR now, that's rightly the focus.

That maybe but STN has suffered the loss of nearly all it's focus in the meantime. Hence BAA turns it's back on STN's success by purely making it a matter of economics in order to focus entirely on LHR, no matter how many passengers and airlines it loses and relationships it destroys at STN.

I even worry that GLA, ABZ and SOU may start to suffer in the future as they obtain the same practice there. However, since none of them are nearly as big as STN and there's now more competition around, I think it's much harder to do and therefore it again comes down to why they want the price increases at LHR!

[Heathrow Harry]

Forget this silly argument over LHR v STN

How can BAA argue for a cut in APD (to boost numbers) and also want to increase costs at LHR (to boost numbers)?

they just play into the hands of those who say you can't believe a thing the airline industry tells you

[Skipness One Echo]

How can BAA argue for a cut in APD (to boost numbers) and also want to increase costs at LHR (to boost numbers)?
APD is born by the airlines, increased costs go to the airport operator. It's not rocket science, it's business. Lose APD and increase costs is a win-win for the operator.
If you have a look at airport facilities in the UK the main lesson is that we don't pay enough to use them which is why they are often
1) Poor
2) Loco dominated

In the UK we expect Hong Kong style infrastructure for next to nothing while we fly for £19.99 less taxes. Like everything else in the economy, it's unsustainbable. Not a huge fan of the late lamented BAA but it's hard headed business acumen that is needed to put finances on a firm footing.

[Skipness One Echo]

Concorde G-BOAB has been moved again, looks to be holding short of 27L. If only.....

[Seljuk22]

According to ACI Europe LHR handled more than 70 mln passengers last year.

[JackRalston]

Any idea what's going on at LHR? Holding stacks look pretty full, no aircraft leaving the holds though, flights diverting into LGW and STN, outbounds going as normal....odd!

EDIT: heard it was a helicopter busting into LHRs airspace, cheeky little sod!

[Skipness One Echo]

It was the Police helicopter, given the substantial costs of quite so many aircraft diverting out, perhaps it would be worth knowing what they were chasing?

[ShyTorque]

Her Majesty got caught short on the way to hospital; they were clearing the route for the nearest loo stop for the car.

[FlightPathOBN]

all looks well now...

Finals EGLL 09 22:52:48 40087B SHT9Q A319 G-EUPL British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:48:01 4CA790 AZA210 A320 EI-DTD Alitalia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:43:50 40083B SHT7B A319 G-EUPE British Airways Shuttle Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:42:23 400966 BAW144 A321 G-MEDF British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:40:57 495282 TAP362L A319 CS-TTB TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:39:39 4BAA56 THY5EQ A321 TC-JRV Turkish Airlines Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:38:38 49528A TAP9438 A319 CS-TTJ TAP Portugal Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:37:02 400935 BAW581 A319 G-EUPZ British Airways Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:35:33 3420CA IBE3168 A321 EC-IXD Iberia Approach
Finals EGLL 09 22:34:22 4008B1 BAW547 A319 G-EUPP British Airways Approach

[DaveReidUK]

It was the Police helicopter, given the substantial costs of quite so many aircraft diverting out, perhaps it would be worth knowing what they were chasing? Not exactly chasing.

Thames Valley Police helicopter assisting in the search for a missing 12-year-old Colnbrook girl, happily found safe and well.

Thames Valley Police - News - Missing girl found - Colnbrook (http://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/newsevents/newsevents-pressreleases/newsevents-pressreleases-item.htm?id=246963)

[FlightPathOBN]

cant put a price tag on that...

happily found safe...:ok:

[Mr Angry from Purley]

Sorry for the spotterish mention but DHL Air B763-300F first visit into LHR tonight (4th March) ferry from EMA for the 2240 LHR-BRU service :\

[DaveReidUK]

Why do they never use runway 09L for take-offs' at Heathrow? I want someone with technical knowledge please. I stand to correction but is it because of the close proximity of buildings/hotels on bath road which would break noise levels? Please kindly advise The short answer is that they do use 09L for departures.

The longer answer is that there was agreement (now rescinded) made in the 1950s with the residents of Cranford that takeoffs from 09L, over their heads, would be avoided where possible.

The legacy of that agreement is that, while the legal restriction no longer exists, the taxiway layout at LHR does not permit sustained departures from 09L, nor continuous arrivals on 09R, so that the runway roles are never alternated on easterlies, only on westerlies (much to the continued annoyance of Windsor residents).

BAA plan to add additional 09L access taxiways and 09R RETs over the next couple of years, at the same time as the runways are being resurfaced. Until then the practical constraints will still exist.

Having said that, there were around 150 departures off 09L in 2012.

[LaudaB777]

Thanks a lot for that. Now, that is the first time anyone has answered this question 100% in detail. Thank you. Its always baffled me as to why 09L was never used for take-offs. Would love to see a take-off from that runway. Also it explains the huge amounts of taxiway construction works on the ground next to the threshold and Terminal 5 area near 09L! Thanks!:ok: But does that REALLY make a huge difference to people's lives if planes take-off from runway 09L? I mean there are homes near Hatton Cross and Feltham as well....so what difference does it make if a plane takes-off from 09L or 09R in terms of noise?!

[LaudaB777]

777-200 Takeoff from Heathrow 09L departure - YouTube

This is the only unofficial video of ever capturing a departure out of 09L. You got to see it in order to believe it.

[CabinCrewe]

09L dept...im remarkably underwhelmed...

[Skipness One Echo]

I would love to be on a 09L departure, in 22 years flying from LHR, I have never been on one. I did see three heavies depart off 09L last year during snow days when the Southern runway was closed. Just ignore Cassandra and those who specialise in 100% negative one liners, they don't have anything worth contributing beyond a glass half empty view. (and smashed on the floor and bombed by a drone before being ground to dust and scattered to the four winds. Bit negative, wonder how some people face getting out of bed?)

[HEATHROW DIRECTOR]

Well, I've cleared a fair number for take-off from 09L (and 10L before that) but they weren't too frequent.. One reason for not using 09L for take off, way back long ago, was the presence of a Marconi S264 radar antenna close to the holding point.

The old route from the A and B cul-de-sacs to 09R was via the inner, west about. If there was a gap in the landers we'd sneak the odd BAC-111 away from Block 11 (God only knows what that is called now).

[CabinCrewe]

Good old Skippy. negative patronising comments are normally your domain. And by the volume of text, some have more time on their hands than others. You stick to spotting, there is a forum somewhere for you.

[airsmiles]

Well 'CabinCrewe' you're not exactly redeeming yourself by your attitude either are you?

I've been flying out of Heathrow for over 30 years and I've never seen an 10L/09L take-off, so it's relative rarity does make it interesting to some PPRuNe lurkers.

[Norman.D.Landing]

Well with the southern runway resurfacing this year, anyone desperate to see a 09L departure will have their chance. The plan, as I understand it, is to go SRO from 2230 each night, and if the airport is operating on easterlies, that only leaves one option.

:ok:

[DaveReidUK]

Well with the southern runway resurfacing this year, anyone desperate to see a 09L departure will have their chance. The plan, as I understand it, is to go SRO from 2230 each night, and if the airport is operating on easterlies, that only leaves one option.Good point, although it's not clear from the rather confusing announcement on the Heathrow website whether the daytime westerly preference will apply at night, or the current weekly alternating easterly/westerly preference.

The confusion isn't helped by the rather strange statement that "from Friday evening to Sunday morning runway alternation will operate as normal: southern runway one week, northern the next week" - that's not how normal night-time alternation actually works at Heathrow.

Heathrow Noise: Runway resurfacing 2013-2014 (http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/noise-in-your-area/runway-resurfacing)

[Peter47]

You may have seen the Jock Lowe's proposal to extend the two LHR runways to 7,500m which I suppose would be instead of idea for close parallels. I'm not a pilot myself but I would have thought that exercising a go around whilst another aircraft was taking off further down the runway could be interesting, to say the least. I'm not sure how it compares with 'Land & hold short' practised at airports such as O'Hare. What do others think and does it make any sense at all?

[DaveReidUK]

What do others think and does it make any sense at all? Interesting that Jock's idea involves extending the existing runways in both directions, not just to the west:

http://interactive.ftdata.co.uk/features/2013-03-08_Heathrow_Runways/_media/chart3.gif

So, allowing for RESAs, we're not just talking about diverting the M25, but also the A30, not to mention the almost complete destruction of Cranford and probably parts of Colnbrook too.

I'm not sure how it compares with 'Land & hold short' practised at airports such as O'Hare.Lots of PPRuNe threads on LAHSO. It's not an idea that has gained much, if any, support in Europe.

[PAXboy]

The 'new terminal and rail hub' would also flatten a swath of housing. This plan, clever though it is, ain't goin' nowhere.

[Windsorian]

The plan for the approved Southern runway RETs can be found here http://w09.hillingdon.gov.uk/images/dv_pl_files/56613_APP_2012_2385/Proposed%20Layout%20Plan-%20Rapid%20Exit%20Taxiways.pdf

The proposals for the northern runway taxiways are due to be submitted to Hillingdon Council this month (March).

[DaveReidUK]

The proposals for the northern runway taxiways are due to be submitted to Hillingdon Council this month (March).Diagram showing the proposed 09L works here:

http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/CIP_2012/Appendix_H.pdf

Page 10.

[Windsorian]

@ DaveReidUK

The BAA / Hillingdon approved drawing shows the final approved RETs and compensatory redundant pavement breakout areas; as such slightly different to your initial plan.

The northern runway taxiway 09L works for the implementation of the abolition of the Cranford Agreement, will have to include an environmental assessment and noise barriers to properties. I believe there are a number of councils opposed, which may result in the application going to the new Infrastructure Planning Commission.

What some of us will be looking out for, are any proposals to add 400m taxiways to the ends of 27L and 27R; when T5 was built such taxiways were added to 09L and 09R.

[Gonzo]

What some of us will be looking out for, are any proposals to add 400m taxiways to the ends of 27L and 27R; when T5 was built such taxiways were added to 09L and 09R.

Windsorian, can you explain this please? What do you mean by 400m taxiways?

[Windsorian]

If you go to the LHR / NATs site NATS | AIS - Home (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=94&Itemid=143.html)

you will see on the holding charts for 09L and 09R that at the time T5 was constructed taxiways were added to the western ends of the main runways. Officially these are not part of the main runways, which begin with the pedestrian crossing type markings immediately before the marked runway numbers.

There are at present no similar taxiway extensions to 27L and 27R, though I understand Heathrow (BAA) are planning such extensions after a rearrangement of the eastern surface car parks takes place.

[Gonzo]

The displaced thresholds on 09L and 09R have always been there, they were not added during the T5 construction.

There are discussions ongoing regarding the benefits and impacts of displacing the westerly thresholds.

[Skipness One Echo]

Mr Windsorian, they most certainly are part of the main runway as aircraft line up well before what are called "piano keys" rather than zebra crossings. The displacement is for landing.

What 400m taxiways? How in the name of God does a new taxiway upset the neighbours. The most noticeable property on the 09L side is Waterside, the home of BA. Anyhoo, typically British is to spend your time whining and trying to find a billion reasons NOT to do something. Still keeps those who ballses it up at school in some overpaid job I suppose.

Been travelling a lot recently, other countries tend to laugh at our navel gazing NIMBY-ism.

Incidentally, LHR has had full length parallel taxiways since Pontius was a cadet.

[Windsorian]

@Gonzo
I was under the impression the western taxiway extensions for 09L & 09R were rebuilt to a higher specification during the construction of T5; I shall check the old photos.

@Skipness One Echo
I think your use of piano keys rather than zebra crossing markings is pure pretentiousness on your part; anyway all the markings are the same length!

The object of planning applications is to allow people to object; something the Nazi Party did not agree with! The recent 09R RETs application, even under permitted development rights, did not receive any objections and was approved by the LHR planning authority (Hillingdon BC).

However the Cranford abolition works, with far more planes taking off from 09L, may well impact on local residents particularly in the Longford and Cranford areas; this is the reason for the enviromental impact assessment requirement and almost certainly additional noise barriers.

My use of the words 400m eastern taxiway extensions to 27R and 27L was to remove any suggestion that Heathrow were planning extensions to the main runways. Perhaps you and Gonzo could clear up what precisely is being proposed?

[PAXboy]

Windsorian
I think your use of piano keys rather than zebra crossing markings is pure pretentiousness on your part; anyway all the markings are the same length!I may only be PAX but have been paxing for 47 years and followed the commecial airline business for many of those. I have never heard the stripes referred to as anything other than 'the piano keys' and that includes countries outside the UK.

[wiggy]

You're right (of course) PAXboy, they're commonly referred to as "Piano Keys" and have been for years.....and if the darn things do look like a zebra crossing to the prospective user then something has gone badly wrong..........

Right, back to lurking.

[Gonzo]

Windsorian,

I've worked in ATC at Heathrow for nearly 15 years now and the runways have alwas been the same length, the far western ends of the two runways have been the as long as I have worked there, I promise, the displaced thresholds did not move when T5 was built.

I'm not sure what you mean regarding extending the runways, the rectangles of Tarmac have always been the same length, and there are no plans to lengthen them.

[Windsorian]

@ Gonzo,

The eastern limit of 27L and 27R ends at the zebra crossing marks; there are at present no taxiways East of these markings. However I understand Heathrow (BAA) are considering rearranging the eastern surface car parks to allow for taxiways to be added - as per the western arrangement of 09L and 09R.


The first opportunity for Heathrow to reveal its new taxiway proposals will be with its submission to Hillingdon BC planners later this month; time will tell.

[DaveReidUK]

I've worked in ATC at Heathrow for nearly 15 years now and the runways have alwas been the same length, the far western ends of the two runways have been the as long as I have worked there, I promise, the displaced thresholds did not move when T5 was built.Quite so.

Here's a 1978 photo, well before T5:

http://cache3.asset-cache.net/gc/78441166-an-aerial-view-of-heathrow-airport-terminus-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=CSIMBv%2faraCCLNLdbJQvXlgyS68c1r3K2lY%2fYRDuwQvUW2EBXv9%2f TWr33sLQgNoMzdHappxIqPaaGUq4tYZkxw%3d%3d

AFAIK, the last runway extensions were completed in 1966 (10R/28L) and 1970 (10L/28R).

[Gonzo]

Windsorian, the first 350m or so of runways 09L and 09R are called starter extensions, due to a displaced threshold. Calling them taxiways can confuse them with the actual taxiways.

Where does your understanding that HAL are proposing them to the east of the airport in the upcoming planning application come from?

[DaveReidUK]

Officially these are not part of the main runways, which begin with the pedestrian crossing type markings immediately before the marked runway numbers.If you re-read the AIP, you will see that's not the case.

It shows the length of the two runways as 3902m (09L/27R) and 3660m (09R/27L), as measured from the point where the curved taxiways enter the two runways (the lines of reds on the aerodrome chart) at the 09 ends.

Those values are also the declared TORAs (takeoff run available) in the 09 direction. As has already been noted, the displaced thresholds of just over 300m mean that the LDAs (landing distance available) is correspondingly less on the 09s.

Incidentally the 27R TORA and LDA are both 18m short of the declared runway length - anybody know why ?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Been travelling a lot recently, other countries tend to laugh at our navel gazing NIMBY-ism."

Isn't that the truth!!

Quote: "AFAIK, the last runway extensions were completed in 1966 (10R/28L) and 1970 (10L/28R)."

Think you're right, IIRC (and it's a big "if"!), it was in preparation for the B747, along with rwy strengthening work at around the same time.

[Musket90]

DaveReid

The end of TORA/LDA at many airports is often before the end of runway physical length, mainly for two reasons. In the case of TORA, obstacles in the climb out. In the case of both, to provide the required (90m) or recommended (240m) runway end safety area. At Heathrow it looks likely it's for the recommended 240m.

[Gonzo]

Correct.........

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks, chaps. Any idea what's lurking in the grass 222m beyond the end of 27R, necessitating the RESA starting 18m further back ?

[Musket90]

What lurks is the ILS localiser and cabin. Also runway end safety area starts beyond the runway strip which is 60m after end of TORA/LDA or ASDA if one is provided. So it's probably 300m or so from end of TORA/LDA to the ILS site.

[DaveReidUK]

Thanks again, that make sense - the 27 localiser arrays are certainly much closer to the ends of the runways than the 09 ones, presumably due to the site constraints.

[Heathrow Harry]

Major article (headline & front page) in this week's Economist on expanding London airports they go for building (in stages) 4 replacement runways west of the current layout, taking out the reservoirs and building over the M25 - a good read

PS they also quote research showing that TRANSIT traffic adds very little to the economic case for an airport - it's the number of peopel coming & going that generates wealth

[Skipness One Echo]

The article is rather comic on some levels. It's transit traffic that makes some routes viable, it may not add to wealth but try running a business without it. Why did US move LGW-CLT to LHR today? Connecting traffic.

Still what do all those airlines know.

[DaveReidUK]

It's transit traffic that makes some routes viable, it may not add to wealth but try running a business without it.Quite so. Strange that a publication called The Economist doesn't appear to understand airline economics.

[Libertine Winno]

I actually thought the proposal talked about in the Economist, originally proposed by the Policy Exchange think tank (I think?), made sense from the moment I first read it.

It does, of course, have its issues such as the fact that flights still go over central London, and the residents of Windsor are going to be none too pleased about it.

However, as a whole package it does seems to have far less of the drawbacks of the other proposals (environmental issues and cost in the Estuary; cost, location and ultimately still not fit for purpose when looking at 2 or 3 runway LGW or STN) makes a genuine attempt to mitigate the noise issues for local residents and will provide a 4 runway hub for a minimal cost, none of which will be borne by the taxpayer.

[DaveReidUK]

Breaking news:

Heathrow Airport (http://heathrowairportmediacentre.webs.com/)

Best read before midday.

[Seljuk22]

China Southern will increase CAN to daily from 17th June (I hope it's no joke).

[Heathrow Harry]

"Strange that a publication called The Economist doesn't appear to understand airline economics"

read the article, check the research - it may be "obviously wrong" to all us flying types propping up the bar but we haven't got any numbers to back up the arguement I feel

given the fantastic record of airline management (and their economic models) at turning investors cash into dross I know which set of experts I'd back...................

[DaveReidUK]

read the article, check the research - it may be "obviously wrong" to all us flying types propping up the bar but we haven't got any numbers to back up the arguement I feelActually, we do.

It's an undisputed fact that, on average, around a third of all passengers getting on or off flights at Heathrow are connecting pax whose journey doesn't start or end in London. That information is freely available in the public domain, although we're not told how that figure varies from route to route.

If you reduce the number of connecting opportunities (fewer flights to fewer destinations) then it follows that you will lose a proportion of traffic that was previously connecting. Conversely, moving a flight from an airport with fewer connections to one with more routes (such as the above-mentioned London-Charlotte example) can be expected to result in increased loads.

[Libertine Winno]

It seems the argument about runway capacity vs hub capacity still needs to be won before the logical conclusion can be settled upon.

In my opinion, the best thing that could come from the Davies Commission's preliminary findings due before the end of 2013 is the conclusion that extra hub capacity is required, not extra runway capacity.

Therefore, the straight decision will be over expanding LHR (the cheapest and most logical option) or building a new airport such as the estuary proposal.

The Economist does come to the right conclusion (expanding LHR) but seems somewhat unsure about exactly how and why it has come to that!

[Fairdealfrank]

In the great scheme of things, 30% transferring pax is not that much. Compare LHR to its peer airports overall such as ATL, PEK, ORD, HND, etc., and their large pax figures are built MAINLY on DOMESTIC connecting pax. At AMS its about 70%. Then look at DXB, DOH, AUH and IST. Connecting pax make routes viable that otherwise would not be, and therefore available to local pax. It's not a bad business model for heaven's sake.

Maybe the best idea for the Commission is to have 2 more parallel rwys at LHR but north of where Tim Leunig (The Economist article) suggests. This still allows the increased capacity to do westward landings over relatively unpopulated land, while keeping the existing rwys (and the status quo for existing flightpath residents), and it keeps rwy alternation. It would still require tunnelisation or diversion of the M25 and A4, but not the demolition and relocation of resevoirs.

We do not have the luxury of time or the public money for new estuary airports, so best to build on what we already have. The original "plan A", a rwy at Sipson, may still be neccessary in the short term.