HEATHROW

[crewmeal]

My view is that many carriers across the UK will look at their operations realistically citing APD as the cause especially when it goes up 8% next April. This govt is hell bent on killing off aviation.

[Seljuk22]

EK will go 4 daily A380 from 25th March. All flights except EK007/008 will see the A380. By year end all 5 flights should be A380.

When will SQ switch their last flight with B77W to A380?

Today TG (ordered 6 A380) announced that FRA becomes their first international A380 destination in January 2013. LHR and CDG to follow.

[TCX69]

germanwings are to launch 3 times daily Stuttgart - London Heathrow commencing 20th Feb 2012.

Stuttgart - London Heathrow
4U2462 STR0720 – 0805LHR 319 D
4U2460 STR1240 – 1325LHR 319 D
4U2464 STR1710 – 1755LHR 319 D

London Heathrow - Stuttgart
4U2463 LHR0840 – 1115STR 319 D
4U2461 LHR1405 – 1640STR 319 D
4U2465 LHR1835 – 2110STR 319 7
4U2465 LHR1845 – 2120STR 319 x7

[jdcg]

Are we likely to see BER, CGN and HAJ (pinched from bmi) follow and the STN routes dropped?

[Seljuk22]

CGN and HAJ are possible. LH is expanding at BER. Doubtful they give it to 4U.

China Southern will start CAN-LHR 3 weekly with 3-class A332 from 6th June.

[Seljuk22]

China Airlines will give up TPE from the end of March.

4U will launch 3 daily flights from CGN (right now op. by LH).

[JackRalston]

BMA428 declared emergency whilst over the English Channel, must of been at FL380 then it descended rapidily and has currently taken the massive cheeky shortcut and has had a straight in approach to Heathrow (sod LAM). Still going very fast just below FL70 so I presume quite serious....any ideas?

[jdcg]

Bit sad about China Airlines. Is there any likelihood of BR going direct (i.e. not via BKK) or maybe BA starting it when they get 787s? Or is there just not the market for it?

[richandhazel]

"BMA428 declared emergency whilst over the English Channel, must of been at FL380 then it descended rapidily and has currently taken the massive cheeky shortcut and has had a straight in approach to Heathrow (sod LAM). Still going very fast just below FL70 so I presume quite serious....any ideas?"

Medical emergency was declared for one of the passengers.

[LGS6753]

Heathrow had a record January according to BAA. Passenger numbers up 2.3% on 2011 to 7.5 million.

[Airlift21]

BAA Airports handled a total of 7.5 million passengers, with Heathrow handling 5.3 million in January 2012.

[chinapattern]

Malaysia Airlines are bringing the A380 x3 weekly beginning 1st July and will then go daily from 25th August upon delivery of the second frame. Surely Korean Air must be next to bring the big bird?

[EI-A330-300]

Delta have canceled Miami from 18 April.

[Seljuk22]

...but DL will increase ATL to 3 daily from mid-April.
DELTA S12 International Operation Changes as of 25FEB12 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2012/02/25/dl-s12update6/)

[Sam Chipperfield]

What Days Will The Malaysian A380 Fly To Heathrow?

[OltonPete]

Sam Chipperfield

Per GDS Mon, Wed & Sat 2/7/12 - 25/08/12 and then daily - these are the Heathrow days. Sun, Tue & Fri leaving KUL at 23.40 and it arrives 05.50 at LHR with a 12.00 departure.

Pete

[LGS6753]

Travel Daily reports:

China Southern Airlines has announced it will fly from Heathrow to Guangzhou in China after eight years of talks. Services will begin on 6 June three times a week to what is China’s third largest city

[davidjohnson6]

BA and Cathay will be delighted

[Skipness One Echo]

Thursday afternon's KE503 Cargo flight from Incheon is being operated by the shiny new B777-200LRF. Still not seen a Cathay B747-8F as yet at LHR.

[point5]

The B748F does not fit on the cargo stands.

[Skipness One Echo]

Ouch! Mind you given the paucity of all cargo flights, it's easy enough to park one on 607 or 609 leaving 608 clear?

[Aero Mad]

Can someone explain to a non-EGLL layman why it is that expensive, coveted Heathrow slots are used for cargo flights, which could easily go into Gatwick or Stansted and straight onto the motorway network?

[JSCL]

Possibly due to the fact that the times cargo flights usually operate aren't in LHR peak. Additionally, many A/C flying in and out of LHR (pax that is), carry cargo.

[roverman]

The value of LHR slots probably entices those carriers which hold freighter slots to keep them until they can be sold or traded for passenger flights. I'm thinking of carriers like CX, who's main UK pure freighter operation is MAN - which can incidentally take the B747-8.

[Skipness One Echo]

The all cargo flights are DHL who operate a small hub with A300s and B757s, Royal Jordanian with a non peak once weekly Saturday afternoon A310F from Amman. The remainder are Singapore Cargo, Cathay and Korean Air who have had these slots for years and have significant presence at LHR. Other operator is EVA who have off peak slots and until recently JAL. some of Cathay's are VERY peak incidentally.

[FlyingEagle21]

'The B748F does not fit on the cargo stands'

I guarantee you can. 607, 608 & 609 are capable.

[getonittt]

Not seen any mention of it here , but an All Nippon 787 diverted into Heathrow last week while on the Haneda-Frankfurt flight. As LHR was in low-viz procedures aswell as Frankfurt what was the real reason for this visit? dare i say kudos ;) ?

[FlyingEagle21]

Not seen any mention of it here , but an All Nippon 787 diverted into Heathrow last week while on the Haneda-Frankfurt flight. As LHR was in low-viz procedures aswell as Frankfurt what was the real reason for this visit? dare i say kudos ?

Only other station with a 787 Tow bar? most probably another reason.

[PAXboy]

getonitttNot seen any mention of it here , but an All Nippon 787 diverted in ...Nope, someone on 'the balcony' spotted it: http://www.pprune.org/spectators-balcony-spotters-corner/478802-ana-787-lhr-today.html

[Betablockeruk]

Mixed mode ops still in use. Thought trial finished on 29 Feb.

[bcn_boy]

All this talk of a thrid runway and lack of flights to China is just a smokescreen. BA will not offer the direct fligths to China as there just is not the traffic, if it were deemed profitable BA would have given up slots to some US routes or shifted flights to Africa to LGW and used the slots for China. Besides, China southern are to begin CAN in June so the flights are there. This is about BAA making more profit and not seeing airlines skip off to LGW, its once owned competitor. What about BHX and MAN? Both have plenty of capacity, yet no sign of BA at those airports. runway space is precious in the South East therefore build a second runway at LGW and create new hubs around the country, particularly a strong one in the nroth at MAN to spread the wealth a little..

[PAXboy]

Neither BA plc, nor BAA plc have ANY interest in 'spreading the wealth'. In this deep recession, there is little room for manoeuvre and the recession is going to last a long time.

Just because we all know that there should be a 2nd @ LGW and a 3rd @ LHR and all reasonable avenues point to this - means nothing.

Sadly.

[118.70]

Betablockeruk :

Mixed mode ops still in use. Thought trial finished on 29 Feb.

Presumably delays yesterday were so great that TEAM could be operated under the longer standing trigger conditions . TEAM* for the trials should have finished at the end of February.

[118.70]

Aero Mad -

DHL claimed in October 2007 :

"Interestingly, analysis undertaken in the OEF study on the Economic Impact of Express Carriers suggests that "the catalytic economic benefit for a flight by an express delivery operator is around £58,000. This is almost three times greater than for the typical UK passenger flight".

House of Commons - Transport - Written Evidence (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmtran/249/249we11.htm)

[jabird]

DHL claimed in October 2007 :

"Interestingly, analysis undertaken in the OEF study on the Economic Impact of Express Carriers suggests that "the catalytic economic benefit for a flight by an express delivery operator is around £58,000. This is almost three times greater than for the typical UK passenger flight".

Can we compare like with like? Is it not fair to say the average freight flight is more likely to use widebodies in order to fit the cargo palettes?

The "typical UK passenger flight" of these days is somewhat smaller - more like the B738 or A320. Given that LHR's fee revenue is around 10x STNs despite pax numbers only being around 3x higher, does that not put a passenger flight at LHR on a par with the figure quoted?

[jabird]

Putting aside the runway issue for one moment, what will LHR's revised terminal capacity be once the new T2 is complete? Is there an outline masterplan for where a T6 would go, and how yet another station (s) would be added to serve it?

[Fairdealfrank]

Once the new LHR-2 is open, LHR-1 gets demolished and rebuilt. AFAIK that it is planned to be an extension of the new LHR-2, so the old LHR-1 and LHR-2 will eventually be replaced by one massive terminal, LHR-1/2.

After that, again AFAIK, the long term plan is then to demolish and rebuild LHR-3, re-aligning it to make better use of the space available.

It would make sense for any potential 6th terminal to be built above or adjacant to, the existing railway spur making it the first airport station (of four), once branching off the main line.

[Seljuk22]

QR said they will send their B787 to LHR this summer.

Kingfisher will pull out of LHR. DEL cancelled from 10th April and BOM from 16th April.

[davidjohnson6]

Kingfisher will pull out of LHR. DEL cancelled from 10th April and BOM from 16th April. Does Kingfisher lease the slots from someone else, or if they are up for grabs who's likely to be bidding ?
Are there any particular constraints that keep the slots to an Indian route, or is it open to all comers ? If the slots are likely to go to Indian routes, are there any constraints as to who can bid from the main UK and Indian airlines due to bilateral agreements ?

[NWSRG]

After that, again AFAIK, the long term plan is then to demolish and rebuild LHR-3, re-aligning it to make better use of the space available.

From what I have seen, T3 won't be rebuilt, but will have some modifications to clean up the layout. Pier 6 (the four new A380 capable gates) will extend slightly westward to allow six gates. Pier 7 (the control tower pier) will be demolished and rebuilt north-south, with access under the apron. This was all 'long finger' though.

I've also seen a conceptual drawing somewhere, with Pier 6 extended eastwards, to merge into the south facing gates of the new T2. Similarly, the north facing gates of the new T2 (phase 2 - replacing the existing Irish gates) could merge westwards into T3. This would create a ring of gates right around the CTA. But I'm not sure this was an official document.

Then there's a third satellite for T5 and a second for T2 also in the long term plan. But without the runway capacity, would they ever be needed?

[adfly]

I could see the third T5 satellite being built even while the stupid nimbys/putney woman get their own way, as it means BA will be able to consolidate their operations into one terminal and depending on how many gates there are it may even allow AA to move in with BA/IB.

[Peter47]

Jabird

I've heard a annual terminal capacity of just over 90m quoted once the new T2 is complete with no increase in movements. This equates to c200 pax / movement or an average aircraft size of 250 seats.

This is about the same as Narita before the second runway opened but compares with c150 pax / mvmnt at LHR now.

I reckon that if the traffic is there then airlines will put on larger aircraft, if its not they will user lower frequency rather than surrender (in)valuable slots. Could that be a use for AA's 77Ws? Replacing BMI Regional jets to Aberdeen with 380 movements will obviously have an effect.

Another way of looking at it is 250,000 pax/day, though obviously more on a peak day. I don't know what the declared hourly capacity of the new T2 will be, but assuming c5,000/direction/hr giving a total airport declared capacity of close to 15,000 /d/hr so it looks achievable given that long haul departures now start at 0800 and go on throughout the day.

I was looking at schedules from regional airports, particularly MAN & see that there are now seven daily flights to the Middle East including an A380? Flights have also been started from DUB.

I read in a CAA report somewhere (I'm afraid that I don't have it to hand) that c35% of passengers at LHR were transferring. Does anyone know if this figure is changing over time?

[Fairdealfrank]

A third satelite (5D) for LHR-5 is very likely, as IB are moving into LHR-5 and several BA services really need to brought accross from LHR-3 ASAP. Otherwise BA remains in a split terminal operation situation (as was the case when it was based in LHR-1/LHR-4) that the LHR-5 development was intended to resolve.

It would be sensible to extend the underground transit to LHR-3 to facilitate easy transfers between Oneworld alliance carriers, and indeed on to the new LHR-1/2 as well to improve most transfers. A parallel landside transit should be on the wish-list as well with an additional stop at the central bus, rail and tube station!!

Meanwhile, back in the real world.....

Without extra runway capacity this terminal development would still be needed as there will be a trend towards the use of larger aircraft to compensate for the lack of available slots.

Of course if the "stupid nimbys/putney woman get their own way" (to quote adfly) it could be a massive own-goal. At present, there is a half-day respite from noise for those under the flightpath. Alternating runways between takeoffs and landings with a changeover at 1500 ensures this.

Without runway expansion there will be unstoppable pressure for mixed-mode, it has already started on a "limited" and "experimental" basis. Apparently mixed mode could raise the 480,000 annual movements to 540,000.

With runway expansion, annual movements go up to 702,000 AFAIK. However those currently under the flightpath would not be affected.

The truth is that, ironically, these residents could actually benefit from runway expansion, because they can then ensure that alternation is maintained on the existing runways as part of the conditions for allowing the expansion. This is where their efforts should be directed.

[Skipness One Echo]

There is the small matter of where to put the fire station if you put in 5D. Aside from the fact it will be closer to T3 than T5. Having all BA ops under one roof is not going to happen, never mind add in AA. Iberia moving to T5 is one to two narrow bodies at a time, max an A340. AA is an awful lot more.

[canberra97]

It is all well and done saying that BA should concentrate all of their flights at Terminal 5 but T5 WAS orgionally intended to take all of BA flights at it's planning stage but by the time it was eventually built it was already obvious T5 would be full when it was completed so several BA flights had to be in T3.

Now saying that BA currently have a split terminal operation which T5 was supposed to eliminate what is going to happen when BA absorb BMI those flights will not really be able to be accomodated in T3 untill the remaining Star Alliances airlines move to the new T2 in 2014.

So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.

[FlyingEagle21]

Quote:
Kingfisher will pull out of LHR. DEL cancelled from 10th April and BOM from 16th April.
Does Kingfisher lease the slots from someone else, or if they are up for grabs who's likely to be bidding ?
Are there any particular constraints that keep the slots to an Indian route, or is it open to all comers ? If the slots are likely to go to Indian routes, are there any constraints as to who can bid from the main UK and Indian airlines due to bilateral agreements ?

I believe they were leased from KLM. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[FlyingEagle21]

Then there's a third satellite for T5 and a second for T2 also in the long term plan. But without the runway capacity, would they ever be needed?

I've also seen plans for a T2D 3rd satellite and perpendicular/parallel realignment of the engineering hangars.

[beamender99]

Do I detect the start of a campain to reverse the decision re the third runway ?

BBC News - Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17356791)

Time to change Heathrow runway policy, says Tim Yeo
A former Conservative environment minister is calling on the government to drop its opposition to a third runway at Heathrow Airport.
Tim Yeo, chairman of the energy and climate change committee, said new EU rules on aviation meant it would not lead to an increase in emissions.

[Dannyboy39]

I'm all for LHR expanding, but surely as soon as Runway 3 becomes full, we're back to square one aren't we?

There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!

[bcn_boy]

It would be interesting to know how Tim Yeo's voting record was on STN expansion. He can talk about LHR all he likes but I bet he was no advocate of STN being expanded with it being so close to its constituency. It would also be interesting to know how many shares or other interests he has in BAA. With HS1 connecting to Birmingham so rapidly in the near future, BHX can quite easily take up the slack, with such fast connections to London. BA should look at expanding at MAN and creating a secondary hub, similar to the likes of Lufthansa in Germany; spreading the wealth around the UK a little. Second runways at LGW and STN should be reconsidered as their environmental impact, and by that I mean the lives of Londoners will not be made worse that what it is already.

[Cyrano]

I believe they were leased from KLM. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So someone needs to start operating on those slots within a few weeks if the historics are not to be lost...

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote "I'm all for LHR expanding, but surely as soon as Runway 3 becomes full, we're back to square one aren't we?

There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway. There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!"

Dannyboy39, it will take a long time, so plan and build a fourth now as well. That will spread the load nicely for many years. Aircraft are increasingly cleaner, quieter and more fuel efficient, (the noisiest and dirtiest are already banned from the EU), so these issues will become increasingly less significant in the long term. The railways and roads are full to bursting, we have to take to the air to get around, so domestic commuter links are important as well. HS2 (if it is ever built) is complementary to existing forms of transport, not a substitute.

As for Justine, she won't be there for ever and she can be promoted out of the way if necessary. Having made her personal views so plain, she will not be able to make any decisions on this issue, that will be someone else's job. The policy will change, let's get on and do it now.

Ironically, a third runway will actually benefit those currently under the flightpath, who currently get daily noise-free half days as alternation takes place. Without a third runway, the pressure for mixed mode will become unstopable, (somehow they reckon they can squeeze in another 60,000 or so annual movements), and thel noise-free half days will be a thing of the past. Justine and her Putney constituents should be careful what they wish for!

bcn_boy, Tim Yeo admitted on The Daily Politics that he had been unenthusiastic about STN expansion, but that is irrelevant to this issue. Rightly or wrongly pax and airlines want to use LHR, and pax that cannot do so will migrate to AMS, FRA, even CDG, etc., rather than STN, BHX or MAN. It's a fact of life.

Regretably, BA can no longer make money out of BHX and MAN even with just with a shorthaul network, hence the sale of BA Connect. Consequently, BHX, MAN and GLA are no longer focus cities for BA. The point is that the likes of AF, KL and LH feed their hubs from these UK cities (and others) just as BA feeds LHR from places like BOD, LYS, MRS, NCE, TLS, (and to a lesser extent ORY), etc. in France, or CGN, DUS, HAM, MUC, and TXL, etc. in Germany, and so on.

Tim Yeo, is correct about LHR expansion and made the point that because of new EU rules on aviation (ETS), runway development at LHR would not lead to an increase in emmissions. He should know, he is the chairman of the House of Commons "energy and climate change" select committee.

[PAXboy]

canberra97So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals.http://www.pprune.org/ ElEQVR4nO1d24GrOgykPBq5HbgceqEUSsn9CBg9RrIMTk6S1XztJkYeyZIs2 wSmRyKRSCQSiUTiBqZ/TSCRSCQSiUTiu5HlVCKRSCQSicQtZDmVSCQSiUQicQt7ObWW6Yl52R7bsqz/lNR4rGWayvq69hdRze72dZnMtszTMa7lvwnhFUqu5elH8Au/w2oQDijNvfjpx8W/TvJZS1kxhRiBd2EtZSWDC016fj2a+1rGOM1thm8K0hh63MYMkCudHhaw/nYueTlIfgvSY5cO4RnLsbdA8qw1/NsyR8c8IO10NlupSJtL2JYZyWzTpi0wp5dxNmkPDttJNHuq/DFJagh2k31aObWW3eruMF0gXyE9SPx/uPdgRZ+MkUJNq+4z9bbMKgobfrwWkL7c3rRhzzrhAoE3gtQzpq3b+g/ofQS4qfuu+7RMFXQbO0B6UQOKOrOTMe4kkyvkzvzG+g3kgUE8Yzn2LrZl3ql SD1jL+Zc7TfdLI9+biynaZtyIH6rAcsql3aymInqNp/0YGrYTcO7f251qj8+2zG9OzU5O4WSuO1ejnDpYjE00a5lKuZa8jplaTrGtpZ 2RMs74dC47W5A6oZfAW0HrmbWUUoDuxyCMd+lGNdUdR3Y51RI1PuneRcxtbg RIo+/AdPQ+o/H81tuv2b7Lwd60FXdOmMwD2DwaXzY0pG0bEVLLRY51kV440Arm7pRvhNYyLK LXHbi156iwnX5zQ0qg7VFvPzjwKN3LRHYfUJLc17mHbZnnZbu2GKwBp1KPL8 7UoLEu4Oag4d5J4K1gaWktZQXRv5Z52V7i0q2k2N2pPc20RH1+OYXc5k6AtP r+pHIK7YSPKKd6HOz9HuIvDnoHvHnNuSPkYXAiaFoV0nb3h4CE4cMWL6duhO 10XG5tUtD7byw5sM1zEJsHSuRafQxFBe6aUIFc+G6veq08+pF1xdmIHqA+W1 EPtCwQVBBI4MfMwqyKjNALWckYmVA5RatpRozugXRo6myuH1bdeTw1BfWM8O/G3lBg6wjrxczB6gSPACM/z7N0G3Lk4rqr4BV1LV7PPP8Txiahz3UNjiyNILF7KWtOzl3HEYxuBmPKkKIA fzJ86p4LGBrA2orfRs4QlRDst6YuyDH9AGGSDlbsvla+nUyGuK+ckq6lzdtn GYP92UTEmvRBCifpOV6B0xriQIfPCMBQ8FrmfVc5VV0pIMUsIyZhPzPziFHq LKf4aDRtGAgMLucW7XFhW3/Zhx2TdmTNWrCNTgFm3JHMcEaSFIjrHyJ8qWZT8h4imMlw1c9VtHtkSJuWgra E+Apy1110hLRoCDIa1s0d+vXZUVxTdrzG7F8/mJ4bpsi3xVlbOHjb22tYL/k57cMkAO6VZNlqv1Wg6a7b46Jrid2h/V/p7PVDML/GRraSU5th9XtkRhloMBoZzCnDElt5snJKbNZrbnYq4wwO6ykhlt9Kyq7fegE ChFFLqmUHv8Gop5ySI+4FSMAydkciiZ2+ikor1htOekrN82O0Dy31ApFrZeZ W8Bp4VznVXqbQps342vUyEwLV21xMBGjzorxfr848FqQ9MGz5gxLENpXYJYT BY7WR4Y3sC3chowKVcDOArbgig2Bd61ggomBQHYGGImpDjQ6ZJwj3+XQmVEx Y86WZFdjNStrvXN2ds7YnH6/X2MGJo5eoUjwCmvx50C9vvPRc5ZJrybM2erfZmVzO6VYYuWdkQeI7e7fcTwZ aK9cHyynIf2+guoHc3FTGCs/CU7STJVq6aL9tBIgpzSj8PZ8J5BZleukeccv4HTWoUm+kBaTVhslpWdDg8Og KwFD28xuMKqemGGp7vtIwOpExxXtHbt1VTkV4akoO71AeC9MeGLaTquxPJ1U E8JkibhMJ7xXccNYt0JykCVuR5fVAGYHnWSCWv0LqxMiwv6EWrc7NepjpVOk 1tx9AbxKqTDPKKe+sjSdOfDLrT9wtvWSV4hEA5I95QB2FOe56ybXUnUuiwCn rg/+eiM+8nSMrrcB/URhZ8gbmj2A5BfgTfzOqW0vYQ6ay+l9VMZIl2rrwCb8ZIJa4tZR1J8Qe/jGgnJpIOa7c4xG2jN+RR4/0RyUHVasmjSRf4FGdAdhfSQS+uSIt2GJz70GyYqqRqW4YYcfa+I1QKyuE8li c9sCwnYDNax6W8xRab1ptguWUNlqvQLecAu3hotkKPMcCwTCLqBMkI4k1XDJ UTtE9UCqzv5za1KayVN0pp3hJr4PJ34Gyvt09u6mXOirwCCALbMs8zaXMhq3 NEex0LX2kIbcq5vkcBCLwysiuZV5WPvGdvVvuJwMtVvKHDiMUf5Y3RQWguDV S2VPWctYqkSwR0EWsVRoBovBkcd4gRxk+Aj6GKbrJROoQs4zfkU8PHMN1qmb Z0S2nrgXgh5VTbmVCN6ZQ6nBi6viwuset3SlNrOlAWK+uPBamPTBs9S/7FDX6D56zUJuQF8r1QjlXnWGBfJKu0pgxWT88/T59zgw82wLRMAuo41rF6Ahp0RAEBWOTMekRTbcF3O8oJjq7nAIbpGr3tRnBo gk9gvP10qnGI4AtoEKsnZG7XQvcIKJvDefTha5sYiO71SVWlaIrXuB+OtBkd EuEyynFnzTg1ofcWqkM1v5+lmjpotymFSAaNK87p+fO36hHZ+IBjCKW8Tvy6 Bn1QEQ14pF4y8wvpy7k9huVRGxxEZV2NrC+l2eyMGN5MUX+pmvu2+WUw7nZp i+PRWkPDNt62EfMr0P2CdMKuk2Vtq9w7etJv2LixQKnspxfkr/3jupPrcRWPv9IK1t7LKtsDy0QVxBJ0AdWuD0nIzuyhozLITOSBmd88pxLOUq tgKYb+pwoPc3Lhgicnl60YXFTB7TDCeRNSy+hjU8ALqWlDiF33R6driXqEXB tnZqYKWohYFpAdVTzSb1uLkVWQ9D9qOs+UHTLVGTnXioK8Mfq6X4BN28r01b QHHrZmEKOhxMgELTaEJUHTVPW3xZJPOITc4+4ZVxjMNNpetJu87K52ZV4BTW gpmFywJkBBaAfvBL2eFIqrAJw8popDQlzrjXt48eUM9c4Ii3aEVcP6NU/QzVpDw7bH3pnX7Nq/nNIi7wNzTs+ExjNFXjip6E3Pf9SwmLP20x8PbKc+mGkRd4EvX5PBJHl1F+GP mf5M77QvHEu8X34lXJKbfcnYge1iVto7dknTMCt9MQfgzqXTiS+Fr9STiUSi UQikUj8I2Q5lUgkEolEInELWU4lEolEIpFI3EKWU4lEIpFIJBK3ECyn6ONIr b85Rv6qLPIg3uDDeg8MoNfZ4zC8s99/peM9XBrc+gSSUfqCp7/o+239Z+cIfn/nTl1zBIc45EivJm4TS4wvpzFGYKTD78sMX4M75s2h+WfoLaf2sFV/cxyTxLvKKZsJxAB6/+oXXZ2afk1f43BpcGutcuXhxTYR8MRl/oCqcDVFH4/96zhKA/gg5xEOOWy+YW7DuI1OWXEa73CS78wM34TLLppD8y/Rf9h34W0GbwDuzn4q3H16IQkveCzdyw1LOH/pg6u6ab9kPXc+oFC8wIK++i7W61rK8qeez2SN4Gc5JHebXm5m+96k8bbdiO/PDG30Gv/zHjz6s0PzBfjtcuqVZ5EhCS/IdC83LOH8pZE5bGIbyAeVQuY2jGy2v2Yly6mPckhBZpjXvf++hSC+PzO00Zu xP+9k7WeH5gswme+qe/5HXpkHAqldTp0v/YJHHPZ7K+n7C7nLwpc7iu74S5qMfStMj93yIpIl/ZDobrzNSxNoPldzaw8H0NSwKrBky/iCc7wv/LI2YfaAdlFFIi4U8j1+h5P9Kr1eDpKPbsJ7NvPfvoNllFMhk0KXDjz41rFDM K6fkRvxn6O1bxLDIbWCOFzJXQr8VA6dEMM8A0zDrIwP+6Ip6wGzljNSksbqe amyNXlbX1lbx+SxzBANk3bsIK2tzBBL44qbauNl7Ha29BgSg4QsH3JRPFURP wzEeGIkJr5dybYuj6MIfhzbU06ht6Fv54sE9OWgMBGHwaefiSOUs7t6B8EFe vSS804E0lVtysop712U1LZMc7ui8oYDaqqtWmCJ5xpfcw72hdlC9ZrOFlGkp UWv7zWHCbhlwJKMj1Nx0Zleoh4H2jJCDiNdmtGnb02DpLUdIrbV5Z3nP/S+H1iME1PZYU6lcJNt+61s4O5PxfBh5hlFBu1O3UhZUKw/UrU99lKUc8Skv1+ojWDrC8lHwySWhaTWTmYIpPFFcbPigrXoyZaR3BWyfMxF Pbc/ZqhGjCcGY3qwmONDhArernKKfHXkFLlQU7GrZcoeqd+g2KhtLtBj31MnVmLI nGFOpdLj5coCXtgYDqgptKpXrRrGB/JjfVX5NbM5OdnRLqJItwu1fC8yTL0cDJ0tYDciWdCR0Y7fU5WJThteDRi0A5 jLjYFr+6rcvAjU+swiTEGpxLYUscHmCrTyjEWmQ6ybsgyx3kg5CdnJORG2wY 4c8nCsw1mIaR3JDMpttM+jIDPa9GbLYBLuNWNrdKTb81B113mJwZgeD5bpyr pPiST9DCun9ljyZxbf/6hDUVGQ1QV6hxOyFA85n+uMUDmluNjLQH84oKY2Q1lONab1wFh7Qo7pwrnH2 tcuoki3C7V8LzJMvRykfNl6ssH6VjCKDC9+gUs/iAMHSgXTDr5tw/4jpUbLKTpqqCwjGyexuqeVZxzSvaLiSdUdKedaL+fcTOnBy6HpgrEjtA6lOD eNG8WW2aY3WwaTcK8ZG+OL45q2d6eoxEjsufu5jHnmnLVMU1loNTWgnKKliT +2jXIKbinfLqcgPfahOQNsyxzaHifnIvV/yxDecFhTlBYGy6lmYEXKKb+AnEuZvV487SKK9LpQ0/ciw9TLQcpvJebWj/x8GVGTailSX+tzww5s588dON9/RIh1lVOegs9Gl7IZzDMWmQuiepOqNVKtfnHOeVs5hcc6HDtVhVCKQ95olVPN Nr3ZMpiER5VTltvjtJ8F1TtwLIXXcm4XauvfLafUNfOZ6/sO+x5rac6I3eUU+Ueu38hShywKCl+mm+6qe6EcnRnWGQ5sf2RVoH7L+Kb8Vl +Cuh+7nrNFFOlyoYDvRYapl4Pk45ZT23mXw0UZjkmhS5NjRGMR7tmBRiMIlw cauIb/rOx2qe5yCpI4LdOfzYw8Y5G5ICqYVJsj5SVkO+e8p5zCYx3KQkpr08GANxo+ r8opv01ntgwm4ZHlFHJ7Mv21YjwxGPVkgca8iP+6tprJzajibyD66eqoBTnE kIGr13GiF3kAQnLxNE37b1uObyoFKzNreufHcynzeTHplwo+D0BgR4IAadjw bms4LE21Va3FtWN8bZhgX+L60opcx9mCijS06PA96lA0abGLr3BoMLEpmnK8 Zo5JkUsvpHeTPHLXZ+aeZ8TcGrig/4CzTcN1rTAXMVsZB7KZwxAOkXQbJzF2payHTBqbO1KMBvz5Ccw5xJ+JJ5C/7dNNoQojHw+TVuxgrdVVpjcCl1DyoNuIjB3PlrC9M505lg+6KOQP2xvrycRo fN07+/hvFLbl0x6i9ufhb9QkvhzO7sVPYWCeyZT1MvwVb0x8B76snBJr9MAhSeKtEF sBiV/D35jABuaZTFkvxN/wxsS34MvKKbHhnInpc7APTOa2H4Z9qv1zGJhnMmW9Bn/IGxPfga8rpxKJRCKRSCQ+C1lOJRKJRCKRSNzC/yhWpB+b3t51AAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals. :}

I sit to be corrected. :cool:

[Fairdealfrank]

Quotes: "So on completion of the BMI takeover BA will have flights from T1, T3 and T5 and BA will be right back to where they were before T5 was opened having flights from three separate terminals."

"So on completion of the [Dan Air/B-Cal/Brymon/Manx/etc.] takeover BA will have flights from T1, T2 and T3 and BA will be right back to where they were before T4 was opened having flights from three separate terminals. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

I sit to be corrected."


That may sort itself out in the long run as LHR-1 is due to be demolished and rebuilt once the new LHR-2 opens. If (as is likely) BD has been completely subsumed by then, it will not be an issue and BA will still be split between LHR-3 and LHR-5. So it's little different from the days when they were in LHR-1 and LHR-4.

It was a bit silly not to have LHR-5 big enough for all of BA (suspect it's a lack of stands rather than the main building itself), but they have manged to squeeze IB in there.

[jabird]

There is no way while Justine Greening is in charge of transport, we'll get a change in transport policy anyway.

Mrs Greening has never given me the impression that transport is her strong point, but I think it is clear a decision of this nature would come from the top down and if she didn't like it she could either step aside or hope she gets a promotion first.

As for Mr Yeo, I never took him too seriously after the back to basics lectures! Didn't realise he gave a child up for adoption too! Not wanting to moralise, but wasn't he the one dishing it out at the time?

Business interests include Eurotunnel, nothing aviation:

Yeo is chairman of Univent plc, Chairman of TMO Renewables and non-executive chairman of Eco City Vehicles plc and AFC Energy plc.

He writes articles for Golf Weekly and Country Life magazines and, occasionally, the Financial Times.

He occupies a seat on the board of Eurotunnel

So it is interesting in that he is saying this with a clear green interest, but I don't think Greenpeace will agree with him just yet!

There's as much chance as this changing, as APD being scrapped, despite we lose more money than it brings in!

Do you have a source for this? The antis love to trot out the £10bn "subsidy" myth, but aviation as a whole is still a net exporter of £s, just as it must also be in most northern European countries, and just as the ferries would have been before the advent of cheap package holidays.

My expectation would be that for each £10 you put on APD, that is more likely to put tourists off - and thus increase the defecit further, as they will choose other destinations, whereas it will have less effect on UK outbound, as people still want to get away.

Now as for BA & BHX / MAN v Germany, this comes up time and again, and it is just not relevant. Germany has a completely different population structure to the UK - many cities in the 1-5m bracket, no single city dominates. When was the last time AF operates serious long haul from the regions? (Yes, they have added some short haul routes recently, but that market is totally distorted by French labour laws which keep the likes of MOL out).

[Aero Mad]

they have added some short haul routes recently

As you say, only to keep easyJet from stealing the south.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
"As for Mr Yeo, I never took him too seriously after the back to basics lectures! Didn't realise he gave a child up for adoption too! Not wanting to moralise, but wasn't he the one dishing it out at the time?"

Do remember something like this at the time, wasn't it John Major banging on about back to basics while sleaze reigned supreme.

Greenpeace and co. have an ideology to stick to and will never waiver from it irrespective of the facts. That's the nature of dogma as opposed to pragmatism.

[jabird]

wasn't it John Major banging on about back to basics while sleaze reigned supreme.

Yes, and I remember the Spitting Image sketches about him having an affair with "Ginnie" Bottomley - they must have known about Edwina Currie but not been able to say anything. Damn I miss that programme - Boris and the two Labour pm's would all have been great. Don't think they would have bothered with the current Labour leader, what's his name again?

Greenpeace and co. have an ideology to stick to and will never waiver from it irrespective of the facts. That's the nature of dogma as opposed to pragmatism.

Yes, but they are convinced that the aviation industry always gets its way and is subsidised to the tune of £10bn+ (minimum). Trying to draw them on the difference between a subsidy and not being subject to taxation is a complete waste of time!

IIRC, Yeo came out with a big Tory green document a few years ago, and I recall reading it and thinking "this is totally vacuous, full of hyperbole and of little workable benefit to anyone".

[adfly]

Willie Walsh is also pressuring the Government into seeing sense when it comes to South East airport expansion!!

BBC News - UK aviation policy 'unholy mess' - says top businessman (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17382841)

[Dannyboy39]

These Willie Walsh soundbites are nothing new really.

[WHBM]

Interesting words in the UK government budget speech :

The chancellor said the government's review of airport capacity in London and the south-east of England would also be published this summer.
The country, he said "must confront the lack of airport capacity in the south-east of England - we cannot cut ourselves off from the fastest growing cities in the world".

BBC News - Budget 2012: London's dangerous cycle junctions get £15m (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17460189)

Firstly it is notable that it is the Chancellor rather than the Transport Secretary making this statement.

Secondly the reference to the "fastest growing cities in the world" is obviously a reference to points in India, China, and other intercontinental destinations, only served from Heathrow, nothing to do with Easyjet destinations from Gatwick or Ryanair from Stansted, nor with some fictional airport in the Thames, two hours travel or more from where so many of Heathrow's customers and employees live, and which might be ready by about 2050.

Lastly, it does seem to point to Prime Minister Davd Cameron finally getting fed up with the performance of The Girlie from Putney, who has consistently placed the desires of her fellow millionare neighbours living in Wandsworth West Hill, to stymie any Heathrow development, over the national remit for transport that she draws her substantial ministerial salary to manage.

Third runway back on ?

[NWSRG]

Third runway back on ?

Twas a matter of time. The politics dictated that the Tories argued against the 3rd runway, but we all know it is the only (shortish term) game in town.

And, it brings the added benefit of a significant shot-in-the-arm for the construction industry, something Cameron and Osbourne will be happy to see.

[PAXboy]

Looks like it's time for the cat to get among the pigeons ... The Independent have a long story and they even mention the Northolt option: Heathrow: Tories (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/heathrow-tories-secret-plot-to-build-third-runway-7584591.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

About time, they've wasted two years, the third runway could have been built by now!

There is no need to worry about coalition splits. Clegg can huff and puff as much as he likes, the Libdems are going nowhere. Even if they did, "Call-Me-Dave" could easily run a minority government.

Labour has no money and will not bring the government down and risk an early election it could lose, nor will the increasingly unpopular Libdems, who would be "slaughtered". Justine could "fall on her sword" or be moved out of the way if neccessary.

There is no realistic alternative to LHR expansion, Osborne is, of course, correct on this one.

The idea of re-opening NHT to civil aviation has merits in its own right. It could become a LCY- or SEN-type operation, potentially opening up a large wealthy catchment area to the west of London to no-frills carriers and smaller carriers operating thin domestic routes. These are currently excluded from LHR mainly for financial reasons (high airport charges for small aircraft, slot costs, etc.), and because of congestion.

Thin domestic routes providing connectivity between regional airports and London and the Thames Valley are desperately needed to boost the economy and the export drive, (region to region is generally well served). LHR can no longer provide these unless it is expanded.

An airport station on the Chiltern line at NHT could provide a convenient 17-minute link to London and a 6 mi. high speed link between LHR and NHT (as has been suggested) could provide transfer potential to/from overseas flights at LHR.

Unprofitable commuter-only or feeder-only flights thus become viable as combined commuter/feeder flights, possibly on code-share with BA-BD and/or VS. Of course this depends on whether carriers (BE, U2, etc.?) can see business potential, a serious rethink on APD is also desperately
needed!

Clearly, the development of NHT is not a substitute for LHR expansion, NHT would be a small scale operation with only domestic and "near abroad" traffic. New flights to Asia and South America cannot go from there. The two projects are complementary, both could be completed relatively quickly, and both play a part in addressing lack of capacity in the south east.

A joint military-civil airport at NHT could also bring in revenue for the military, take general aviation and VIP/Royal travel away from LHR, and keep a defence capability close to London, a far better alternative to the possible closure of NHT.

It's win-win all round so let's get on with it!

[Hobo]

NHT would be a small scale operation with only domestic and "near abroad" traffic.

I don't see why this should be the case, with a circa 1700m strip, all non uk based (for maintenance purposes) shorthaul could use NHT more or less without restriction. As has been pointed out, a high speed underground link for the 5 miles to LHR, would effectively make this part of LHR, not separate from it. The high speed link could be an airside one, making NHT just another pier at, say, T1/2 at LHR.

As Fdf says, just what are we waiting for?

[PAXboy]

Here we go again ...
I won't allow third Heathrow runway, says Boris Johnson - UK Politics - UK - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/i-wont-allow-third-heathrow-runway-says-boris-johnson-7585498.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "I don't see why this should be the case, with a circa 1700m strip, all non uk based (for maintenance purposes) shorthaul could use NHT more or less without restriction. As has been pointed out, a high speed underground link for the 5 miles to LHR, would effectively make this part of LHR, not separate from it. The high speed link could be an airside one, making NHT just another pier at, say, T1/2 at LHR.

As Fdf says, just what are we waiting for?"


That would be even better Hobo. Much, though not all, of the high speed link north of Hayes station could be on the surface, parallel to the A312/B455, so that would save some tunnelling costs.

International-international transfers over LHR/NHT won't be possible. Because of the need to go through border control, customs, check in and security, etc., pax won't put up with it, hence my emphasis on the ressurection of commuter/feeder flights on thin domestic routes, no-frills carrier traffic and charter/holiday business.

So don't see it as an alternative to LHR expansion, that has to go ahead, and soon, but not using NHT to its full potential is a waste of a good little facility.



Politics PAXboy, Boris has an election to win, he'll have to tow the Cameron/Osborne line after that.

[Bagso]

Its only a mute point but if you are a tourist coming from Australia you will soon be spending the best part of £100 (APD) simply to fly home.... in that time you will have no doubt bought the odd meal, travelled around the UK , stayed in hotels etc etc

In short you will have made a contribution to the UK economy !

Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !

.....and if that wasnt bad enough we are now going to buy them another bloody runway! jeez !

[Skipness One Echo]

Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !


Yeah, are you pretending that you don't know that having so many connections is the only way to maintain route frequency and hence competitiveness. Bagso, you're smarter than that. If they all fly via another hub, London loses a fair amount of frequency and so the guys paying silly money up the frony who allow me to fly for less go elsewhere. Think it through.....

Presumably you think Emirates punters ex MAN are freeloading over Dubai?

[OltonPete]

Emirates A380 Johannesburg/London Heathrow Operation Changes in May 2012 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2012/03/27/ek-jnblhr-may12/)

Another delay to the 4th daily A380 - EK29/30 now 1st June.

At least EK5/6 has started now with the A380.

I assume the wing inspections are taking longer than expected.

Pete

[racedo]

Yeah, are you pretending that you don't know that having so many connections is the only way to maintain route frequency and hence competitiveness. Bagso, you're smarter than that. If they all fly via another hub, London loses a fair amount of frequency and so the guys paying silly money up the frony who allow me to fly for less go elsewhere. Think it through.....

Problem is that its the people paying APD plus tax in the UK are subsidising this 19m while getting bugger all in return.

What competitiveness is achieved by spend £x Billion on a new runway, how many real jobs occur......

Spending the £3 billion on R&D and development of real long term opportunities aids UK more than subsidising a transit stop.

[Skipness One Echo]

Spending the £3 billion on R&D and development of real long term opportunities aids UK more than subsidising a transit stop

What DO you mean? You're usually quite switched on, tell me more. That's very plausible until one stops to actually read it and at the moment it's entirely generic, harmless and a little meaningless. One might almost think political?

[Yellow Pen]

Contrast this to19M transit passengers or as I describe them freeloaders, who fly in ,then fly off into Europe, who do not pay any APD, infact we are lucky if they buy so much as a burger as they dash to their connection !

Although those 19M transit passengers have mostly paid their fares to British airlines, thus pumping money into the British economy and corporation taxes to the British government. Saying that transit passengers don't contribute to the British economy is like saying the City of London doesn't contribute because two foreign parties may choose to do business with each other there through a British intermediary.

[racedo]

What DO you mean? You're usually quite switched on, tell me more. That's very plausible until one stops to actually read it and at the moment it's entirely generic, harmless and a little meaningless. One might almost think political?

More like anti political

Politicians are more concerned with getting elected and getting remembered for grandiose projects than doing stuff that will help people...............HS2 is a classical point.

The actual cost of the Heathrow project is a guesstimate with £1-2 billion minimum.

Rather than spending billions on a grandiose scheme with a precieved claim of improving competitiveness a better use of the limited resources is investing in real education and real R&D to rebuild competitiveness.

Sadly none of this will be done and billions will be spent for the now 30% of passengers travelling through LHR which give nothing to the economy.

So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers, run LHR so it adds real value rather than spending money so you can claim ego by being biggest in Europe. Time for reality rather than Willy waving.

[racedo]

Although those 19M transit passengers have mostly paid their fares to British airlines, thus pumping money into the British economy and corporation taxes to the British government. Saying that transit passengers don't contribute to the British economy is like saying the City of London doesn't contribute because two foreign parties may choose to do business with each other there through a British intermediary.

BA pays bugger all Corporation tax because they invest and use legal methods to minimise it.

[johnnychips]

If you didn't have transit pax, wouldn't that make many routes uneconomic if they do consist of 30% of planes' LF on average?

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "More like anti political

Politicians are more concerned with getting elected and getting remembered for grandiose projects than doing stuff that will help people...............HS2 is a classical point.

The actual cost of the Heathrow project is a guesstimate with £1-2 billion minimum.

Rather than spending billions on a grandiose scheme with a precieved claim of improving competitiveness a better use of the limited resources is investing in real education and real R&D to rebuild competitiveness.

Sadly none of this will be done and billions will be spent for the now 30% of passengers travelling through LHR which give nothing to the economy."

The point is, racedo and it's important, is that LHR expansion is private sector money. Unlike the HS2, the Olympics, etc., and other government projects/follies this will cost taxpayers nothing.

Can we put this "transfer pax"-knocking to bed please, we've been over it ad nauseum. They make some routes viable when otherwise they would not be, and that gives more choice to OD traffic. It benefits UK carriers who hub at LHR i.e. BA, BD, VS.

Quote: "So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers, run LHR so it adds real value rather than spending money so you can claim ego by being biggest in Europe. Time for reality rather than Willy waving."

It has nothing to do with "Willy waving", it affects the real economy. There are 70,000 jobs on the airport and over 100,000 directly related. Over and above that many companies are based in the Thames Valley because of the convenience of LHR on the doorstep, and the range of destination it offers.

If LHR is to be run "so it adds real value" it needs to be enlarged so that it is not running at 98-99% capacity (compared to 70-75% in the cases of AMS, CDG and FRA). The congestion needs to be reduced and this can only be done two ways: expansion, or a mass reduction in slot availability which easier said than done (who decides who loses slots, decisions open to legal challenges, etc.).

Two more runways are needed now: 2 for landings, 2 for takeoffs; existing for large aircraft, the new ones for any (they would be shorter).

Let's get them built as soon as.

[Skipness One Echo]

So what if LHR loses 20 flights a day to CDG of transit passengers

So BA cuts all feed from Paris from long haul? Are you really throwing that one under "so what"? The laughter you hear is Air France......
The only reason I can fly to New York for such a competitve price over say Edinburgh is because London has the frequency which depends on feed from major European capitals.
For the same reason Air France still fly LHR-CDG even with Eurostar is that AF need to feed CDG long haul. You know this fine well of course.
Reality is setting in at Coalition HQ, there are no easy options and if the bills are ever to be paid in we need to remain competitve today and that is not going to be some Fantasy Island hatched by the blonde shagger currently plotting in City Hall to become PM.

[Bagso]

Your smarter than that praise indeed Skippy !

The Ex Manchester pax you mentioned that interline via Dubai, Doha, Singapore and Abu Dhabi have all paid APD directly to the UK Governement !

......the 24M who transit LHR have not !

Infact you will be lucky if they grab much more ran a burger running from T1 to T5, that does not add value to the public purse !

OK yes it does add frequency but do we actually need flights every 30mins to JFK ! Would 90 mins not do ?

Just one other "minor" point !

LHR handled 70M pax in 2011, if it grows at say 5% per annum, by the time the runway is completed it will be running at 100M pax per year.......!

Whichever way you cut it a 3rd r/w will make bugger all difference !

And whilst we are talking about all the extra runway capacity where is all the extra airspace coming from ? Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stansted Luton....not to mention Notholt, Farnborough, Bigging Hill all support significant traffic movements. Each has its own owners , operators and indeed vested interests. The airspace in the South East is already rammed, even if you can get runways the conflicts are in the air.....not on the ground !

Finally wasnt Stansted supposed to be the answer....nobody moved, nobody was interested, it got lucky as it concided with a boom in Loco... so even a new airport is not the answer.

To be honest its a fragmented mess !!!!

[Skipness One Echo]

Infact you will be lucky if they grab much more ran a burger running from T1 to T5, that does not add value to the public purse !

The public purse has to learn to live within it's means, something no politician in recent years has contemplated. The answer is always "tax more". If the market supports an hourly JFK then well done, London and New York are two world cities. Business operates in a market that won't use STN or LGW. Either support the market or watch it move to FRA or CDG before it glances at another UK airport.

Besides which, APD is a smokescreen, all these connecting passengers create lots of jobs in baggage handling, cabin crew, cargo, back office as well as flight deck. Jobs in the real economy, not parasitic pretendy public sector jobs that serve no purpose beyond getting the underskilled into overpaid positions.

A new runway at LHR would help the economy more than building a second runway at say, MAN believe me.

[compton3bravo]

I thought there was a second runway at Manchester!

[Skipness One Echo]

I thought there was a second runway at Manchester!

There is, however the economic benefits were overstated whereas the economic benefits of a new runway at Heathrow would be much greater.
Gatwick can do on one runway much less than MAN which "needs" two.

[chaps2011]

Firstly MAN used to have a very landing rate on 1 runway but there are
many difference between MAN and LGW. The mix of traffic at MAN is much more than at LGW, at the time MAN runway 2 was built it was pushing right on the limit but a big hit on traffic over a period has hit the north of England
more than the south east but is coming back strongly.

Ian

[racedo]

The point is, racedo and it's important, is that LHR expansion is private sector money. Unlike the HS2, the Olympics, etc., and other government projects/follies this will cost taxpayers nothing.

Can we put this "transfer pax"-knocking to bed please, we've been over it ad nauseum. They make some routes viable when otherwise they would not be, and that gives more choice to OD traffic. It benefits UK carriers who hub at LHR i.e. BA, BD, VS.

Think you will find that public sector billions will have to go in to support this with little if any payback in return.

Making routes viable is not worth taxpayers money nor should it be the reason for a new runway..


It has nothing to do with "Willy waving", it affects the real economy. There are 70,000 jobs on the airport and over 100,000 directly related. Over and above that many companies are based in the Thames Valley because of the convenience of LHR on the doorstep, and the range of destination it offers.


That is rubbish as the setting up of businesses anyway have the international airport close by as 25th on the list of importance.

Its a nice to have but not even close to being essential, availability of skilled labour, business space, overhead costs come way up the list.



If LHR is to be run "so it adds real value" it needs to be enlarged so that it is not running at 98-99% capacity (compared to 70-75% in the cases of AMS, CDG and FRA). The congestion needs to be reduced and this can only be done two ways: expansion, or a mass reduction in slot availability which easier said than done (who decides who loses slots, decisions open to legal challenges, etc.).

Two more runways are needed now: 2 for landings, 2 for takeoffs; existing for large aircraft, the new ones for any (they would be shorter).

Let's get them built as soon as.

Lets not waste resources on projects that offer little payback.

[racedo]

The public purse has to learn to live within it's means, something no politician in recent years has contemplated. The answer is always "tax more". If the market supports an hourly JFK then well done, London and New York are two world cities. Business operates in a market that won't use STN or LGW. Either support the market or watch it move to FRA or CDG before it glances at another UK airport.

Besides which, APD is a smokescreen, all these connecting passengers create lots of jobs in baggage handling, cabin crew, cargo, back office as well as flight deck. Jobs in the real economy, not parasitic pretendy public sector jobs that serve no purpose beyond getting the underskilled into overpaid positions.

A new runway at LHR would help the economy more than building a second runway at say, MAN believe me.

A new runway will suck up resources and not solve the crowded airspace problems.

Frankly spending £2 billion on a high speed LHR-LGW would solve more of the LHR crap than building a new runway, people would question the travelling time between airports but think nothing of sitting for 35 minutes queueing once they land awaiting a gate.

[Skipness One Echo]

Frankly spending £2 billion on a high speed LHR-LGW would solve more of the LHR crap than building a new runway

So like landing in Glasgow and connecting in Edinburgh? Is there an easier option? Yes, so I wouldn't do that then now would I? May I suggest we don't spend billions doing that unless you want to christen it "Project Mirabel".

[bcn_boy]

All this talk of the 3rd runway is nothing more than government lobbying by BA and BAA. Expanding LHR has nothing to do with the economy as LGW is already taking up the slack from LHR on Asia routes by offering Vietnam Airlines, Air China, Korean and Hong Kong Airlines. The new owners at LGW no doubt have more Asian routes lined up and even Cameron himself suggested that LGW is rapidly becoming a business airport. If the routes to China were as lucrative as BA would have you suggest then where is the expansion along with Virgin into these new cities? CAN is coming online in June but that is offered by China Southern, why not BA? BAA's interest stems from more planes which equals more lucrative revenue from landing slots,more passengers which equals more shoppers to spend money in the airport which eqauls more profit and more dividends for shareholders. None of this has anything to do with the UK's competitiveness and access to other growing trading nations. We have LGW, STN and other airports around the UK which are suitable for long haul expansion and can take up the slack quite easily.

[racedo]

So like landing in Glasgow and connecting in Edinburgh? Is there an easier option? Yes, so I wouldn't do that then now would I? May I suggest we don't spend billions doing that unless you want to christen it "Project Mirabel

Its a less worse option than spending billions at LHR to sustain 19 plus million transfer passengers.

[Dairyground]

The public purse has to learn to live within it's means, something no politician in recent years has contemplated. The answer is always "tax more".


On the contrary, recent governments, including the current UK government, have taxed less and borrowed more. Greece is a prime example of where such policies lead. Does nobody who thinks UK Income Tax rates are too high remember the days when we mostly accepted without too much objection a basic rate of 7/9d (about 39p) in the pound?

But back to Heathrow. As a transfer passenger, I never like having to change airports to make a connection. I care a lot less where exactly the intermediate city might be. so, somewhat reluctantly, I would support a third runway. However, if the demand for new routes to economic hot spots is really there, why not offload some of the services from routes with multiple fligts per day to a secondary hub in MAN or EDI? BA could surely fill one of the current JFK services from MAN, and use the vacated slot to initiate a service to somewhere new, like Seoul.

[Skipness One Echo]

It doesn't work like that. It simply just does not. MAN-JFK would have a marginal impact on LHR-JFK. You hub through one place for economies of scale, not some "share with the regions" policy like the BBC pretending to move to Salford. Explain why Virgin don't operate a single MAN-EWR/JFK?

[pwalhx]

I am sorry but a High Speed rail line between LHR and LGW is nto a good option, do you really think passengers arriving at LHR would want to get on a train to connect to a flight at LGW. More likely they would think 'sod that' and look at an airport where they can connect without such messing about, I would.

[Heathrow Harry]

15 million voters in the London area = no third runway

[compton3bravo]

Sorry BCN boy, Gatwick could take up the slack but the airlines you mentioned are only operating into Gatwick solely because they cannot get slots at Heathrow. Nobody wants to fly long haul from Stansted and there are very few long haul long flights - and some of them are struggling - from other airports in the UK with the exception of the Middle East carriers.
It is just a simple fact - everybody wants to fly in and out of Heathrow - simples!

[PAXboy]

Also, the carriers only want to operate at one site - the cost savings of having a BIG hub are significant. The current recession only emphasises that.

[Skipness One Echo]

A vocal NIMBY class does not speak for man voters, many of whom WORK in the industry! The country needs a third runway and the only realistic place is LHR. Worth mentioning they are thinking of selling off RAF Northolt so airspace capacity may not be such an issue.

[North West]

The developments in the middle east should be proof enough of the wider benefits of creating a scale hub. There must be a reason why the gulf states are pouring money into developing airlines and airports around a hub spoke model. It's possible that rather than seeing transit passengers coming through Abu Dhabi or Dubai as worthless freeloaders, the more enlightened thinkers in the Middle East released such passengers are the critical mass in a model that would allow Abu Dhabi and Dubai to be linked to far more places than would otherwise be the case. That in turn would be good for business and tourism.
If that was the plan (and I'm sure it was) then you'd say so far so good. But just because LHR has evolved over 70 years and not just the 20, doesn't mean the same principles aren't in play here in the UK

[Baltasound]

It is also cobblers to suggest that a 3rd runway at LHR will be entirely funded by the private sector - nope. The public sector will be paying more than a chunky wedge in terms of servicing the airport - transport costs for one.

And the project is not shovel ready either. It will be bogged down in the courts for at least 2 years and the environmental case will have to be watertight to the nth degree or it will be bye bye.

Personally I don't see the need for another runway, but then I am almost certainly in a minority.

If the Tories want one (and the Labour Party as well) - run on that platform in 2015.

[racedo]

Nortwest

Mid east oilconomies have more money than sense and investing more and more into airports and airlines that never have a hope of paying their way.

Not really want to emulate anything they do, even though Brokeback Dave is prostituting himself to sell off RBS as payback for Libya involvement.

[Skipness One Echo]

that never have a hope of paying their way.

The defintion of the British economy then? This is what happens when all you need to run policy is a PPE from Oxbridge. *u**wits to a man.

[racedo]

The defintion of the British economy then? This is what happens when all you need to run policy is a PPE from Oxbridge. *u**wits to a man.

or have been to Eton like Brokebaxck Dave.......

Sadly too many career politicians stay and never do anything useful in life....

[bcn_boy]

Compton3bravo, whilst it may be the case that these airlines cannot get slots at LHR they do however still have the access to London and the UK through LGW which is what is fundamentally necessary according to our esteemed leaders as well as the aviation industry themselves to keep the UK connected and competitive. It is not all about LHR, BAA and BA. We should all get behind LGW and besides, if this is about connecting the UK, then LGW has far more domestic connections than LHR allowing for the UK to interline to the outside world.

[compton3bravo]

Agree with you BCNBoy about getting behind LGW but the truth is that everybody wants to fly into Heathrow. Look at the number of US airlines who have moved their schedules as soon as slots have become available. Regarding domestic flights it is quite obvious BAA do not want many domestic flights at Heathrow they want the European and long haul so they can charge expensive landing fees and also get more out of passengers who will spend more on shopping!
PS Always liked LGW but unfortunately it is some distance from where I want to go to when I have to return to the UK so I use the airports north of London. Cheers

[compton3bravo]

Must take you to task Racedo about some of the Middle East and Gulf countries. If you have ever been to Oman, UAE, Muscat etc you will see they look after themselves - free education, health and no income tax. If successive UK governments had kept North Sea oil and gas for domestic consumption and not sold it to all and sundry you wouldn´t have to rely on the likes of Iran etc. and our good friend Mr Putin for gas!
Just look what is going on in the UK today - people in charge could not run a booze up in a brewery - pasties (hot or cold) and Jerry cans come to mind.
And before you mention it there is a general strike in Spain today but at least the people on strike are trying to improve their lot and not sitting on their hands also keeping the most important things in life i.e. family, food, enjoying life - not running round at 200 mph and don´t have time for anyone - coffee on the go - ridiculous! Oh dear what has happened to my old country.

[racedo]

If you have ever been to Oman, UAE, Muscat etc you will see they look after themselves - free education, health and no income tax. If successive UK governments had kept North Sea oil and gas for domestic consumption and not sold it to all and sundry you wouldn´t have to rely on the likes of Iran etc. and our good friend Mr Putin for gas!
Just look what is going on in the UK today - people in charge could not run a booze up in a brewery - pasties (hot or cold) and Jerry cans come to mind.

Remind me who tasked personnel over there to ensure they kept their leaders in place and lost lives over the years............oh wait its HMG.

Population of both combined is less than London but least there is opportunity to change leaders every few years, rather than relying on another family member.

Mid east countries rich soley because of oil and price now manipulated to allow them get even richer.

[pwalhx]

I also must take you to task compton3bravo, I regularly see you taking a pop at the U.K. in your posts, I am a regular worldwide traveller and for all its travails there is nowehere else I would rather live than here in the U.K.

I am sure you are happy in Spain, and good for you in that case, but your observations are from a distance and we are certainly no worse off and in many cases much better position than others.

[compton3bravo]

Everybody entitled to their own opinion phalwx. The concern I have is that when I return to the UK now it seems to have gone down hill so much compared to when I lived and worked there a few years ago. It saddens me greatly to see what has happened to it and I take no pleasure in the comments that I have made. It is just my personal observations. Anyway back to aviation matters - third runway at Heathrow needed but unfortunately not going to be built. Cheers

[Skipness One Echo]

We should all get behind LGW and besides, if this is about connecting the UK, then LGW has far more domestic connections than LHR allowing for the UK to interline to the outside world.

There is the minor detail that on a route for route basis, Gatwick massively underperforms Heathrow on long haul yield which is why Continental spent several MILLION dollars buying slots to escape from Gatters. Funny thing, for 50 years they've been trying to fix that. Share your solution?

[bcn_boy]

Skipness One Echo - LHR has the critical saturation that allows for such high yields. Not many other airports have that, not even AMS or MAD come close. CDG and FRA can compete but to a much lesser extent. However, you seem to be speaking from an airlines profitability perspective rather than the arguement about what is good for the economic competitiveness of the economy, which is what the 3rd runway arguement is about. London is one of the largest business hubs in the world, airlines will continue to fly here, no other city of its size and stature can claim to have so many airports serving it. LGW can quite easily become a business airport for London playing the niche card as it already has done as the UK's new gateway to Asia.

[Skipness One Echo]

Oh come off it! "Quite easily?" As for Asia, Gatwick just gained and lost Kuala Lumpur and Korean would be double daily at LHR slots permitting. The new Hong Kong service is already dying on it's feet, mainly because it's competing with LHR.
Gatwick is and remains a leisure airport for the most part. Even Delta are leaving in April.

[canberra97]

SKIPNESS You must really hate and I mean really hate or is it dislike whatever it is you seem to have a major grudge about Gatwick, many times on here and on other forums on other sites you continously run down Gatwick and especially BA at LGW, you seem to think you have all the answers but as much as alot of what you say is very near the truth can you just hold back sometimes as it is getting very tedious.

[Charley B]

Skipness
No matter where Air Asia x were flying into in Europe-it would have stopped-nothing to do with LGW, and which the new management have completely turned around and done so well after BAA.
Air China are starting here soon-DY and LH are examples of business flights-so LGW is not entirely a leisure airport-yes there are plenty of leisure flights ,we all know that!
Give LGW some credit,the management have really tried hard here:)

[Skipness One Echo]

many times on here and on other forums on other sites you continously run down Gatwick
No sir I do not and have never done so, you are clearly not reading what I am saying.

I love flying from Gatwick. Just flown BE LGW-NCL, DL LGW-ATL and doing LGW-AMS and LGW-INV in the next month so whatever I may be, I am not anti Gatters. I love the airport and am pleased at what GIP have done.
However talk of "getting behind" Gatwick as if it were some League One football team is naive nonsense. There are real and understandable reasons why long haul at LGW struggles. All the way from BUA, BCAL and Virgin's fight to get out of LGW into LHR. You must have noticed that all they left behind was leisure?

Anyone who wants to see BA short haul expand from LGW is in cloud cuckoo land. I have been flying with BA through LGW for 18 years and watched them closely but I cannot see how they are going to turn LGW short haul into a profitable operation, and as a stand alone business unit that's a death sentence, clearly signposted by the continued postponment of the B734 fleet replacement. In business the death of a thousand cuts can be a better scenario than the axe falling as it's done organically and over the last seven years BA short haul LGW has contracted fleet size year on year.

The same goes for anyone who thinks Air China or Korean are starting at Gatwick by choice and those who cheers Hong Kong Air as the next big thing. Gatwick is what it is, the primary leisure gateway for London. It has never managed to beat LHR on a single long haul route and today there are only three long haul routes from both LHR and LGW. ( God I hope that's right, Friday and post pub!), Seoul, Beijing and Hong Kong, with Seoul and Beijing a LHR move when slots become free. Given the focus on alliances and connectivity and the added expense of a split operation over two London airports with only two daily flights, I just think some fanboys need to get real. As for LH, well they're downsizing already, and given they alrerady operate LHR and LCY-FRA I give LGW-FRA another year. It was a spoiler to keep EZY out of FRA and I don't see it lasting, indeed the aircraft has already been downsized.

That's not anti Gatwick, it's a balanced assesment of commercial reality and of what the market will support, it does not mean I hate Gatwick for goodness sake, it just means it's never been able to, and still shows no sign of, competing with LHR in certain markets.

[compton3bravo]

Well said Skipness, my thoughts entirely. Also just goes to show how Dave C is not in the real world when he said he wanted to make Gatwick a business airport. It will always be primarly a leisure airport but nothing wrong in that.

[Bagso]

We still seem to be no further on with the issue of "airspace restrictions", chaps.

As mentioned in an earlier post LHR, LGW, STN , LTN, LCY, are all competing for a slice of the traffic, business or Leisure, as they all have their own unique vested interests.

I was actually forgetting we also now have Southend in the mix.

Farnborough and Biggin also have a substantial level of business movements ! I have excluded Northolt as this may yet become part of the plan !

All the forecasts I have seen deal with capacity restrictions based purely on runways, the natural arguement therefore is build another runway and hey presto you can put more aircraft in !

What about ATC capacity in the air , is this infinite, it appears to be !

So why not put 2 runways in LHR , add another at LGW, and why not throw in a second at Luton and Stansted .....on that basis everybody is happy, each has bags of capacity and all the delays, restrictions dissolve .... !

BUT hang on capacity cannot be infinite, as a case in point we have the Olympics coming up, all the reports on ATMs relating to the increased traffic levels regarding that event suggest a different story, they suggest a very delicate managed flow to prevent massive slot restrictions, delays etc, so they are in effect saying that the marginal extra movements relating to the Olympics cannot be handled without a trade off somewhere else ....!

..... if you build another runway at LHR will this not simply constrain movements in another location i.e. are we not simply shuffling round the problems that ATC have to then manage ?

A case in point is the Stansted/ Southend equation, EZY have in effect moved 30 daily flights that previously served STN to Southend, instead of all these movements originating at 1 airport, we clearly now have airspace issues around movements in/out of STN plus Southend and even LCY as slots in/out must conflict with each other !

That problem in itself will now grow as the owners of Southend have aspirations to grow their own business by 2m pax a year !

I just cannot see how this the piecemeal approach of an extra runway is actually going to maintain the status of LHR unless the ATMS are reduced elsewhere..

" so hands up everbody who wants to give up their slots ! "

[Bagso]

The responses re airspace capacity in the South East has been deafening !

Solutions anybody ?

[Skipness One Echo]

The responses re airspace capacity in the South East has been deafening ! Solutions anybody ?

ATC Issues - PPRuNe Forums (http://www.pprune.org/atc-issues-18/)

If you honestly want to know, only these will really know. You're in the wrong forum.
All I will say is that if we can't have it all, then strategically, we would need to explore closing something else to benefit the major hub at LHR. BAA ran the models before they spent millions buying land and houses for the the third runway.

[Bagso]

Well I have to be honest Skippy for somebody with your excellent knowledge that is a total kop out but well done for sticking your head above the parapit.

We have had siren voices on here suggesting we must build the 3rd RW at all costs NOBODY but nobody has addressed this issue.

As indicated if building a 3rd runway will reduce holding , taxy delays then surely the same argument applies to LGW, STN.....all we need do is carpet the South East and a solution is at hand !

At least you agree that something has to give elsewhere !

[Trash 'n' Navs]

surely the same argument applies to LGW, STN.....all we need do is carpet the South East and a solution is at hand !

Bagso,

Ever heard of Castellón Airport? Building an airport where there's space isn't good enough - it's not Field of Dreams. If the SLF don't want to use it, then you can't force them to. Same principle applies to extending an existing one.

3rd rwy @ LHR would solve an existing problem of providing capacity during low viz conditions alongside the growth in use of Code F aircraft and those problems listed earlier. IMHO, the political requirement to spare residents the noise have created more problems than it solves.

True that multiple runways won't work unless flexible departure tracks are made available over West London to optimise sequencing whilst maintaining adequate separation.

[Bagso]

trash

I refer my learned friend to my previous post where I suggested expanding LHR and closing all the others down.......:ok:

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Bags,

Did and reckon my comments are still valid -
If the SLF don't want to use it, then you can't force them to.

Closing them down to open up airspace seems an odd proposition when there are other options that would free up airspace and (existing) airfield capacity - doing away with alternation at LHR and allowing flex departure tracks would solve the short term capacity constraints.

The political quotient will always get in the way though because the Westminster Crew seek election/re-election but if the UK is to prosper, it needs strong political leadership with the long-term vision to lay out the roadmap to growth.

[FlyingEagle21]

For anyone who has knowledge about GA and the private aircraft at LHR. How often do you see a light twin?

I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit.

[DaveReidUK]

For anyone who has knowledge about GA and the private aircraft at LHR. How often do you see a light twin?

I was out by stand 412 a few days ago and saw what I thought was a light twin taking off from 27L at around 0900, so It wasn't a quiet time of day. How the hell did that get there? Surprised me quite some bit

AFAIK, the only light twin prop to have visited recently was a Navajo Chieftain early last Saturday (31/3), but that was gone by 07:30 local so it doesn't tie up with your 09:00 departure.

[FlyingEagle21]

AFAIK, the only light twin prop to have visited recently was a Navajo Chieftain early last Saturday (31/3), but that was gone by 07:30 local so it doesn't tie up with your 09:00 departure.

Must have been that one. Can't remember what time it was, just in the morning. Thanks Anyway

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Closing them down to open up airspace seems an odd proposition when there are other options that would free up airspace and (existing) airfield capacity - doing away with alternation at LHR and allowing flex departure tracks would solve the short term capacity constraints.

The political quotient will always get in the way though because the Westminster Crew seek election/re-election but if the UK is to prosper, it needs strong political leadership with the long-term vision to lay out the roadmap to growth."

Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off, but it will increase airfield capacity, by about 12%(?).

However, it will end the daily half-day of quiet for residents under the flightpath and, politically, that may be fraught with difficulty. On the other hand, threatening mixed mode could be a way of neutralising opposition to LHR expansion.

Frankly this is not too far from the truth, for if there is no LHR expansion, and soon, it will become increasingly difficult to resist pressure for mixed mode operations (irrespective of the increase in congestion).

[WHBM]

Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off.....
Seems a bit of a non sequitur here. Can you please explain why departure queues, holding to land, etc, will be extended, when (at current traffic levels) each runway will be handling only half the takeoffs and half the landings.

[Calmcavok]

Cobblers. Clearly a leading proponent of HACAN. Can't be arsed proving you wrong, but if S1E won't, I gladly will.

[Skipness One Echo]

Mixed mode will not address congestion at LHR. Not only will departing planes have queue to take off as at present but will also have to wait for planes to land. Arriving aircraft will be circling for longer as they queue to land and this will be lengthend by the need to wait for planes taking off, but it will increase airfield capacity, by about 12%(?).

I will see if I can find a link to the models BUT mixed more does give more movements per hour as it's makes more efficient use of existing runway capacity. It allows peaks and troughs in the arrival and departure flows to be smoothed downwards. I have seen aircraft taxi from T3 to line up number one on 27R and depart and then ten minutes later, same scenario with about seven ahead at the holding point. At the moment the model is quite static due to the 0700-1500 and 1500-2300 runway allocations but in mixed mode, ATC have more dynamic ability to filter traffic to where the queues are smallest.

Heathrow on paper is full all the time but since nothing really runs to schedule all the time in reality, there are some pain points during the day, particularly with regard to departing heavies one after the other after the other which gets worse when everything is heading on the same SIDs.

[Gonzo]

there are some pain points during the day, particularly with regard to
departing heavies one after the other after the other


But that's actually what you want; you aim to group Heavies together as you do not have to apply any wake turbulence separation between them.

Theoretically, mixed mode does cut down holding, both on the ground and in the air, providing the schedule is the same; both the departure and arrival rates are in excess of the schedule. So, if you keep running mixed mode for a period of time, you'll eventually run out of aeroplanes and they'll just land or depart as and when they turn up.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: " Can you please explain why departure queues, holding to land, etc, will be extended, when (at current traffic levels) each runway will be handling only half the takeoffs and half the landings. "

Yes, WHBM, exactly right at current traffic levels, but the point of moving to mixed mode would be to cram in more movements within the existing infrastructure, and that too has its limititations (physically and politically). There is no alternative to further expansion.




Quote: "Cobblers. Clearly a leading proponent of HACAN. Can't be arsed proving you wrong, but if S1E won't, I gladly will."

Hardly a leading proponent of HACAN, Calmcavok, look at the facts, actually think LHR needs two more runways and soon!

Under a four runway situation, the retention of alternation (two runways for landing and two for takeoff) would almost certainly be the political trade off if this was ever to be approved, which is highly unlikely, obviously.

You could check my previous posts and take a look at the Thames airports threads and you will find consistent support for LHR expansion, and consistent scepticism of an estuary airport (sorry Silverstrata!), but suspect that "you can't be arsed".

[mickyman]

'Major airlines have already started shunning Heathrow Airport'

Good !!

MM

[davidjohnson6]

It is quite possible that BAA have a point in their report and I have sympathy for those who wish to see a 3rd runway.

However, there is far too much conflict of interest in the owner of Heathrow publishing a report into why Govt should allow Heathrow to do more and why airlines can't go to Gatwick or Stansted (which happen to be either owned by a rival or likely to be soon)
It's just not possible to take this report seriously given BAA's past monopolistic behaviour - it reeks far too much of spin and lobbying.

[WHBM]

However, there is far too much conflict of interest in the owner of Heathrow publishing a report into why Govt should allow Heathrow to do more and why airlines can't go to Gatwick or Stansted (which happen to be either owned by a rival or likely to be soon)

Well there really aren't too many other people in a position to state the blindingly obvious.

Heathrow opened immediately post-war.

Gatwick opened 1958 as a reliever, there were some attempts over the years, both forced and voluntary, to make it go of it, but for example all the US carriers who were required to use it just upped and walked out to Heathrow when the rules changed, they never wanted to go there. It now seems to be degenerating into just a base for Easyjet.

Stansted came along about 1986 as a further reliever, that also had a rise and fall and is again running down into just a Ryanair base, and passengers have fallen off 25% in the last five years.

Both these airports have demonstrated, in particular, that premium passenger demand, and connecting passenger demand just doesn't exist outside Heathrow. Plenty of airline shareholders' money has been spent over the years trying to prove this wrong but finding it is right, there's no need for any additional study. BAA might point this out but it's quite apparent for us all to see. The only success for business travel has been London City, a small niche place.

[Aero Mad]

You're amazingly Heathrow-centric.

degenerating into just a base for Easyjet

I accept that this is because of lack of capacity at Heathrow, but why does Gatwick have new routes started/starting to Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, Lagos, Reykjavik and various others all with non-UK (non-Easyjet) airlines? Certainly not just an easyJet base... if you'd have said that before the BAA sale then I wouldn't have been so surprised. But to say that now is somewhat out of touch; you've only got to take a brief glance at Gatwick's present airlines/routes lists to see that it certainly isn't 'just a base for Easyjet'. The current owners wish to transfer it into a gateway to the emerging markets (for wont of a third runway at Heathrow) and so far they seem to be doing a pretty good job of that - not just appeasing Easyjet.

[WHBM]

.... why does Gatwick have new routes started/starting to Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, Lagos, Reykjavik and various others.
Because it's a second-best holding operation to get at the UK market. Once slots come available (and, for once, there seems some likelihood of this at the moment in the BA-BMI fallout), they'll be off there like a shot.

[Aero Mad]

If you'd read my post you would have seen that I said that in my second sentence. The issue I was debating was whether Gatwick was:

degenerating into just a base for Easyjet

I qualified that in practice this was blatantly untrue, throughout the rest of my post.

[DaveReidUK]

Major airlines have already started shunning Heathrow Airport due to stringent capacity restraints, according to the boss of airport operator BAA - and they are taking aviation jobs with them.

Shock news:

a) Heathrow is capacity-constrained.

b) Airlines who would like to expand services from Heathrow, but can't get the slots, add capacity elsewhere.

c) If there were more slots and more flights at Heathrow, there would be more jobs.

Full marks to the consultancy who actually managed to get paid for stating the bl**ding obvious.

[Skipness One Echo]

Full marks to the consultancy who actually managed to get paid for stating the bl**ding obvious.

Have a look at the ignorance of our political "elite" then explain to me why stating the sheer bl33ding obvious isn't required?

[Fairdealfrank]

Trying to make LGW as a rival airport for LHR was tried, and failed abysmally, in the 1960s, 1970s and early 1980s. At a time when central government owned both airports, the "second force" civil aviation policy forced to be based at LGW. it should not be revisited now.

The UK private longhaul LGW-based carrier was expected to compete (on a playing-field about as level as that at Yeovil Football Club) with publicly owned LHR-based BEA and BOAC, later BA. There was a succession of them: BUA, BCal, Laker and Virgin.

Not surprisingly, BUA, BCal, and Laker all failed. Virgin survived only because it was able to move its base to LHR on the collapse of the ill-fated "second force" policy.

Both BA and VS retain a presence at LGW for historical reasons: BA because it inherited it on the takeover of BCal, and VS because it started there. It is no co-incidence that both use LGW for mainly leisure point-to-point destinations and keep LHR as the hub for connectivity.

Airport ownership has nothing to do with it. Before GIP bought LGW, airlines were shifting to LHR from LGW when opportunities presented, and that continues today. Expect Vietnam Airlines to move to LHR-4 at some stage and Korean to join the rest of it's operation at LHR.

As stated above, STN has declining pax numbers despite being FR's main UK base, so it would be pointless to have another runway there at this time, or in the near future.

LGW is more than just an U2 base although it's an important part of its business. LGW also does holiday flights and charters, and is a "waiting room" for carriers wanting access to LHR. In that respect, LGW is a hybrid airport, a little of everything.

We go round and round in circles but it all comes back to the same point: LHR expansion is the only game in town.

[DaveReidUK]

Have a look at the ignorance of our political "elite" then explain to me why stating the sheer bl33ding obvious isn't required?

Fair point - one should never underestimate politicians' ability to hear only what they want to hear.

Re-reading the original article, I'm not sure Mr Marshall does his argument any favours with the strange scenario that he paints: foreign airline X desires more slots at Heathrow, finds it can't get them, so then throws a hissy fit and pulls out all its flights, moving them to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or wherever.

If true, that would be a wonderfully self-regulating example of supply and demand in action, with more slots regularly being freed up by disgruntled vacating carriers, but somehow I don't think that's quite what he had in mind.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Re-reading the original article, I'm not sure Mr Marshall does his argument any favours with the strange scenario that he paints: foreign airline X desires more slots at Heathrow, finds it can't get them, so then throws a hissy fit and pulls out all its flights, moving them to Amsterdam, Frankfurt or wherever."

Would they do that? If so they would probably lease the slots and make some money in their absence.

AFAIK, correct me if this wrong, but my reading of the situation is that these carriers would stay at LHR but expand their operations at AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., because of an inability to do so at LHR.

The point is that they're not going to MAN, BHX, STN, etc.. and only a handful are using LGW as an "overflow" for the time being.

[jabird]

For anyone thinking the govt might be softening on LHR's 3rd runway, this article suggests otherwise:

Heathrow Airport expansion (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/transport/heathrow-airport-expansion-ruled-out-for-10-years-by-aviation-minister-7660858.html)

I'm not sure if Ms Villiers has any more credibility than Greening - was she not the one who as shadow transport secretary promised that the new hs2 line, which only goes as far as Leeds and Manchester, and only then by 2032 - would be a replacement for the third runway?

I still think the runway plan has serious flaws, but what I take exception to is the idea that you can have the government pretending to have an "open" consultation on the matter whilst at the same time saying that Heathrow isn't even on the menu, as the transport secretary already has her token Greenpeace plot there!

[DaveReidUK]

Would they do that?

No, of course not, that was my point.

my reading of the situation is that these carriers would stay at LHR but expand their operations at AMS, CDG, FRA, etc., because of an inability to do so at LHR.

My reading too, hard to see what else they could do, hissy fit scenarios notwithstanding.

[Skipness One Echo]

What Villiers and Greening know about the industry could be tattooed on a gnat's bum. Populist nobodys who'll say any old baloney to get elected. Tragic.

[canberra97]

Question) Is the old control tower planned to be demolished?

I know part of the office space around it has already been demolished but the old tower does seem to take up quite a bit of valuable land around the new terminal 2.

I know it has been the centre piece for Heathrow ever since the CTA was built in the early fifitys and for nostalgic reasons it will be missed if it was demolished but nostalgia aside it surely must come down at some point.

It might get alot of aviation enthusiasts very angry if it was gone but BAA do need the extra space in the CTA and the old tower is just not situated very well in terms of the new terminal 2 development.

[fonejacker]

I know the big red radar is scheduled to go pretty soon, the one opposite T1, at the mouth of the tunnel. Not sure about the old control tower though.

[Skipness One Echo]

I had a flash of the obvious today.Given BA have bought BMI and all the planning for Terminal 2 as exclusive for STAR had the whole BMI operation in there, might we see BA take that up instead allowing short haul to use the best facilities at LHR in T2 and T5?
Leave QANTAS and the JSA Australia long haul in T3 with Oneworld and move the small BA short haul operation into the new T2 with BMI?

Otherwise there's no way STAR will fill the new T2 as all planning would have been done with a based fleet of BMI airbuses in situ to fill the gates and manage passenger flows. Retail contracts would have been signed with this in mind like T5 was.
Win win for BA, as STAR no longer have an exclusive facility at BA's home base and BA can enjoy facilities on a par with T5.

A virtual Mars bar to the first person to tell me what time the B787 is supposed to be leaving please? Cheers !
Incidentally, the old Tower is coming down as part of the redevelopment of the CTA.

[DaveReidUK]

It might get a lot of aviation enthusiasts very angry if it was gone


Gosh, that would never do.

Joking aside, clearly it's got to go, but it would be nice to see some commemoration to mark the passing of the last remnant of Gibberd's original CTA design.

[Heathrow Harry]

as a passenger LGW is a damn site easier to get through these days than LHR

getting rid of BAA was great move

[beaufort1]

I've just been watching the BBC news who were reporting on the three hour immigration queues at LHR terminal five yesterday evening, what with that and the toilet that is Gatwick, my decision to avoid London airports at all costs has definitely been the right one. What is it going to be like when the Olympics start?:confused:

[Aero Mad]

toilet that is Gatwick

As someone who uses LGW-GCI regularly when going onwards to ACI, I'm not really sure what you mean. It really is pretty seamless these days. As a Guernseyman, I wonder how you avoid Gatwick when connecting given that it is by far the most convenient option?

[FlyingEagle21]

In the 2011 CIP you will find all the information on the Old control tower demolition. (page 48)

http://www.baa.com/static/Heathrow/Downloads/PDF/CIP/Heathrow_CIP2011_Full.pdf

Also in the 2011 CIP are the plans for T2C and T2D.

Found in the CIP for 2009-2011...

http://www.baa.com/static/BAA_Airports/Downloads/PDF/Heathrow_CIP_2010_Complete_Document.pdf (page 158) T2D

http://www.baa.com/static/BAA_Airports/Downloads/PDF/2009_Heathrow_CIP_full_%20document.pdf (page 312) T2D



For T2D this will mean demolition on the BMI, Virgin and BA "Cathedral" hangars and relocation/reposition of the maintenance facility.

The New hangars will be build perpendicular to the runways and take up a lots less room. T2D will be built where current hangars start and everything shifted to the east.

T5D will be built around 2018 and linked to the repositioned T3 parallel Pier.

It's all in there! and I assume if a R3 is ever built T4 and the cargo will get overhauled/rebuilt perpendicular/parallel to the runway....who knows

[beaufort1]

As someone who uses LGW-GCI regularly when going onwards to ACI, I'm not really sure what you mean. It really is pretty seamless these days. As a Guernseyman, I wonder how you avoid Gatwick when connecting given that it is by far the most convenient option?

I've given up on Gatwick as I can't remember the last time when I've used it during the last ten years when there hasn't been some building/restoration work going on, and the security goons make travelling through there a fairly unpleasant experience. Having to negotiate the car park laughingly called the M25 makes onward travel a lottery when trying to catch onward connecting flights out of Heathrow. Travelling to Alderney from the UK you would be quicker routing direct through Southampton that would be a lot more convenient.

[davidjohnson6]

To those who slag off Heathrow and Gatwick (immigration delays being largely the responsibility of the Govt rather than BAA), I'm curious as to what it is that you really expect.

Nobody seems to want to pay a lot more in airport service charge. Both are very busy airports that are either at or not far off their design capacity. If you're going to compare these 2 airports to competitors, it should be against those which are also serving at least 20 million or more passengers, not against those serving less than 2 million.

Are places like Frankfurt or Barcelona really so wonderful in comparison to LHR and LGW ?

[Aero Mad]

I've given up on Gatwick as I can't remember the last time when I've used it during the last ten years... having to negotiate the car park laughingly called the M25 makes onward travel a lottery... travelling to Alderney from the UK you would be quicker routing direct through Southampton that would be a lot more convenient.

You should give Gatwick one more chance one of these days. Under new ownership it has changed considerably for the better. After the lane-widening, the M25 is no longer as bad as it was ten years ago; I've managed many a connecting flight by using the National Express services which are very good and have never suffered a delay. You say it would be quicker to go from SOU but often it is more expensive (which, including train fares, adds up to £80 more on a two person return booking), and also takes marginally longer when I only live ten miles from LGW (out of three journeys this summer, I am only using SOU once). Back to thread however...

[beaufort1]

I used Gatwick last year and it took nearly three hours by car to get to Heathrow to catch a flight. National Express I used about four years ago, on the return trip after a flight inbound via Heathrow not one of their scheduled coaches stopped, there was nobody to ask to get information and even though I had given myself over four hours to get to Gatwick we missed our flight back to Guernsey, on that particular trip I had no choice but to fork out over £300 for the two of us to use Flybe on a one way flight back into Guernsey. I complained to National Express along with about half a dozen other passengers who had suffered the same fate and I never even got a reply. I find it cheaper to use a taxi. As I said, I've given up using London airports when I can.

[Skipness One Echo]

For T2D this will mean demolition on the BMI, Virgin and BA "Cathedral" hangars and relocation/reposition of the maintenance facility.

The New hangars will be build perpendicular to the runways and take up a lots less room. T2D will be built where current hangars start and everything shifted to the east.

T5D will be built around 2018 and linked to the repositioned T3 parallel Pier.

Not sure "will" is the correct word, not all of this is going ahead, certainly not T5D and most assuredly not by 2018.

[DaveReidUK]

Not sure "will" is the correct word, not all of this is going ahead,
certainly not T5D and most assuredly not by 2018.

Quite so. Those Capital Investment Plans are just that - plans - and the timescales therein are subject to change.

For example, the 2011 CIP included provision for all the post-Cranford taxiway and runway exit works, for completion in April 2012, but the decision was taken in November last year to freeze the planning application because it could involve the local authority consulting Cranford residents while aircraft were already departing over their heads during the Operational Freedom trials.

[PAXboy]

Looking through one of those CIP documents, I have to say that the level of marketing bull$hit and management 'flannel' is VERY high. :yuk:

[WHBM]

For example, the 2011 CIP included provision for all the post-Cranford taxiway and runway exit works, for completion in April 2012, but the decision was taken in November last year to freeze the planning application because it could involve the local authority consulting Cranford residents while aircraft were already departing over their heads during the Operational Freedom trials.
It really is amazing that there are still, in 2012, not a full set of runway exits in place at Heathrow for 09R, after all these years. It's not as if there have not been plenty of landings on that runway over the years, what with periodic single runway ops (when rapid exit is surely essential), dual landing between 0600-0700, and all sorts of other instances. Any other European country with their key national aviation infrastructure, would have done this for the sake of some resilience over minimum expenditure, years before.

[Shiny side down]

Due to a last minute booking/error by the travel department, It was my joy recently to arrrive international at T3, and join the bus ride to T5, for my UK transfer.

Oh how I hate tensa-barriers. Getting to the bus, traversing the 6 U-turns as you walk through the makeshift queue lines, even though there were only a small handful of us. All watched by some smirking yoof.

The bus-ride is dire. Thrown about with reckless abandon, with lots of unhappy foreign pax wondering if this was normal.

Security screening at T5
(booking agents in foreign countries just dont get it, that you go through the mill even though you arrived international, to transfer at LHR)
Contradictory instructions by the screening staff. Laptop must come out, but iPad doesn't, before going through the machine.
On the other side of the machine, secondary search of cabin bags. Wait 45 minutes. What was common for about half of us for a secondary search, was-
We didn't take our iPads out of our bags; As explained by a snotty 'security' operative. When I explained that this was the instruction by the person on the input side of the belt, there was complete disinterest, and no effort to correct the problem.

Total time arriving T3 to being coffee side of T5 security- 1hr 25mins. Lots of highly unimpressed travelers from all over, forced through this bizarre effort.

Add this to the border agency efficiency, and we are making UK as attractive as the US to arrive into.

Maybe I'll book passage on a tramp cargo ship in future. Is that still possible...?

[intortola]

Had exactly same issue with IPAD at T5 last Sunday, bag was pulled for a secondary inspection and wait was in excess of 30 minutes. I was rudely told it was my fault for not following instructions and removing all computers, I tried to explain that I asked about the IPAD and was told it did not have to come out, this caused the security lady to snarl something at me. In the last 10 days I have passed through 7 different airport security cones (2 in UK) and not once did I have to remove the IPAD, the only place it proved a problem was T5. I have no problem removing it from my bag if required, I just wish they all followed the same rules.

[DaveReidUK]

It really is amazing that there are still, in 2012, not a full set of runway exits in place at Heathrow for 09R, after all these years. It's not as if there have not been plenty of landings on that runway over the years, what with periodic single runway ops (when rapid exit is surely essential), dual landing between 0600-0700, and all sorts of other instances. Any other European country with their key national aviation infrastructure, would have done this for the sake of some resilience over minimum expenditure, years before.

Hard to argue with that. While the Cranford Agreement was in force, presumably any works to facilitate sustained departures from 09L would have been seen as provocative, but it's hard to see how adding more 09R RETs could produce many objections, given that every TEAMed landing on easterlies represents one aircraft fewer overflying the good folks of Windsor and Eton.

[IainB]

Someone asked earlier how easy was it to transit through Barcelona.

My experience from a couple of years ago was the time taken from doors open to standing on the pavement outside the terminal building - including baggage reclaim - was 25 mins.

LHR T5 last year inbound from Larnaca, about an hour at immigration and another 20 mins at the reclaim to wait for random items of luggage to circulate folornly. The delay was such that the taxi driver I had booked called me when I was in the immigration queue to ask where we were. All the above was after a 40 min delay waiting for an outbound aircraft to clear the stand..

[Anthony Appleyard]

If there are demolitions on the south and east edges of the Terminals 1 2 3 area, that may give archaeologists a chance to look at what remains of the old Heathrow village.
Heathrow (hamlet) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_%28hamlet%29)

What is the current stage of the "Heathwick" plan to make a new fast dedicated railway between Heathrow and Gatwick? Heathwick - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathwick)

[WHBM]

If there are demolitions on the south and east edges of the Terminals 1 2 3 area, that may give archaeologists a chance to look at what remainsWell that'll be another 10 years down the drain then, while they sift through all the ground with a teaspoon, all at Heathrow's expense.

What is the current stage of the "Heathwick" plan to make a new fast dedicated railway between Heathrow and Gatwick?
Pipedream.

It's strange that the best we can come up with for the substantial numbers interlining within Heathrow is ridiculously improvised solutions (see above), while for the handful interchanging over to Gatwick time is spent looking at multi-billion pound solutions.

[DaveReidUK]

Interesting to see that the Transport Secretary has now specifically ruled mixed mode at LHR, as well as a 3rd runway, as being beyond the scope of the forthcoming government review of airport capacity.

Reactions to last week's announcement include:

"Surely the pros and cons of all possible solutions should be carefully considered?" (Colin Matthews)

"The Transport Secretary's statement defies credibility for a government which espouses a desire for economic growth and recovery" (John Strickland).

"There isn't any credibility in this government. They should turn round and say: 'You know what, we don't know what we're doing.'" (Willie Walsh).

Greening said that the government would look at other, unspecified ways of maximising Heathrow's capacity.

[adfly]

I'd be so interested to find out what those 'other, uspecified ways' are... :E

[Trinity 09L]

Excavating/demolition.
Watch out for lesser spotted blue backed frogs, so it may become a nature reserve instead.:ugh:
An earlier question to BAA LHR unanswered, was their sufficient space at 09L start for super heavies spooling up?

[Skipness One Echo]

Given the upcoming demolition of the old control tower, is the St George's chapel to be removed as well? There is a "multi faith prayer room" as well but the old chapel is absolutely old school and beautiful, with a host of airline memorabilia in site.

Also looking at the new T2, I am assuming that the black cladding on the southern wall is temporary, to become glazed when the building is extended over Terminal 1?

[DaveReidUK]

An earlier question to BAA LHR unanswered, was their sufficient space at 09L start for super heavies spooling up?

If you mean "have A380s taken off from 09L?" then the answer is yes, on around 20 occasions, most of those being in December 2010 when 09R was snowbound, and a few times since then when departures have been delayed beyond midnight.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "What is the current stage of the "Heathwick" plan to make a new fast dedicated railway between Heathrow and Gatwick?"

Dead in the water, the entire plan smacks too much of desperation.

Just like the airport on the estuary (with apologies to Silverstrata!), it will never happen.


Quote: "Interesting to see that the Transport Secretary has now specifically ruled mixed mode at LHR, as well as a 3rd runway, as being beyond the scope of the forthcoming government review of airport capacity."

Quote: "Greening said that the government would look at other, unspecified ways of maximising Heathrow's capacity."

Does anyone else have the feeling that Greening doesn't have much time left in the transport job?

[Skipness One Echo]

Does anyone else have the feeling that Greening doesn't have much time left in the transport job?
Look at the available "talent" and see who's any better. She's a fully paid up member of no growth for LHR which saves both "call me Dave" and the Lib Dems the hassle of confronting reality before the next election. She's a firewall.

[ArtfulDodger]

More warning shots on Heathrow's future prospects



Story with links here..... Heathrow could be reduced to “local” airport: « The Airport Informer (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-z7)

[ArtfulDodger]

Was he pushed or did he jump.

Funny how he only gave a big keynote address, on the future IT Strategy for Heathrow only days ago at the Institute of Engineering and Technology.

Full story here.....


Heathrow CIO Resigns, Philip Langsdale Moves to the DWP (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-za)

[DaveReidUK]

Much of Heathrow's IT has been outsourced over the last year or so, I don't know whether that would have had bearing on the CIO's decision to move on.

[WHBM]

Joan Collins tweets her fury over Heathrow passport delays as immigration minister blames wind | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2144864/Joan-Collins-tweets-fury-Heathrow-passport-delays-immigration-minister-blames-wind.html?ito=feeds-newsxml)


Mr Green also called for better information on arriving passengers from airlines, saying that three times as many passengers arrived at Heathrow yesterday morning than were expected.

On Friday, the On Friday, the Border Force was told to expect some 2,500 passengers between 6am and 9am yesterday. This rose to 5,000 at six hours’ notice, but in reality some 7,500 passengers turned up, Mr Green said.

I wonder if anyone from a position of knowledge can comment on what seems like a nonsense to blame on the FIDS data, that 2,500 pax were expected, then 5,000 a few hours before, and finally 7,500 turned up. Given that Heathrow schedules and aircraft sizes are known months in advance, and the slots have been basically full for years, how can this possibly have happened ? I just don't believe it.

[DaveReidUK]

The Minister's grip on reality appears to be pretty tenuous, or else he's being fed porkies by UKBA management. Clearly it's impossible for 3 times the number of expected arriving passengers to roll up, out of the blue, and I, too, can't believe that UKBA doesn't have sufficient access to passenger loads and arrival schedules well in advance.

It's not rocket science - the size of the queue at immigration is simply a function of the rate of arriving passengers and the rate at which they are processed by UKBA.

Granted, the queue size will fluctuate in the short-term depending on the sequence of arriving flights (passengers on some routes presenting more challenges than on others), and that sequence will partly depend on enroute winds, but averaged out the processing rate, and consequent queue size, is going to be determined by resources.

The Minister should seriously consider hiring a GCSE school-leaver who's familiar with the unplugged-bath-with-the taps-running problem.

[jdcg]

Apparently, they're blaming fuel costs etc, although presumably it's to squeeze in the 4th JFK.
What a shame as I'm sure there'd have been 100s of Kenyans dying to fly down from GLA and EDI on the new competing SH feed flights VS have got planned for LHR (erm..maybe not)...

[bcn_boy]

Forever the patriotic Joan - if she chose to use her UK/EU passport rather than her US one then would have avoided the long immigration queues. If she is so concerend about the state of Passport control, maybe if she paid her taxes in the UK then that would go towards the extra staff required.

[compton3bravo]

BCN - If you read the twitter message Joan Collins did not acually say she had to wait just saying there was a lot of people waiting to be cleared. She could have used her EU/UK passport or more than likely paid the extra to go straight through - but we are not to know that of course. I pay my taxes in GB but fortunately do not spend much time there and maybe you can understand or maybe not why when you arrive at an airport/port.

[Aksai Oiler]

Nearly died of shock last night passing through T5 (from Madrid to Aberdeen) to see no queue at Immigration and none at transfer security, despite it being 1800hrs. In all it took me from arrival gate to the BA South Lounge - 10 minutes (including walking).

This is a trip I do every 2 weeks and its the first time I have never had to wait somewhere in T5 :}

[FlyingEagle21]

Anyone aware of any problems today on 27L as I saw I believe 3 go arounds in a row? Might have been late afternoon? I just thought what are the chances of 3 in a row?

[DaveReidUK]

Anyone aware of any problems today on 27L as I saw I believe 3 go arounds in a row? Might have been late afternoon? I just thought what are the chances of 3 in a row?

The only noticeable interruption in 27L landings yesterday, between the 3pm swap and a change to easterlies at 9pm, was for 10 minutes from around 15:20.

If you wait a day or so, WebTrak should be able to tell you what happened, though not why.

Three GAs in a row is pretty unusual, but not unknown, last time I recall noticing that was mid-December last.

[Gonzo]

Multiple missed approaches are pretty common, as things go. Maybe once a month...

Usual causes are FOD on the runway, or a landing aircraft fails to vacate due to hydraulic problems.

[DaveReidUK]

The only noticeable interruption in 27L landings yesterday, between the 3pm swap and a change to easterlies at 9pm, was for 10 minutes from around 15:20.

If you wait a day or so, WebTrak should be able to tell you what happened, though not why.

Three GAs in a row is pretty unusual, but not unknown, last time I recall noticing that was mid-December last.

Looks like there were in fact 4 consecutive missed approaches on Wednesday afternoon.

BAW639 (A320 G-EUUT) landed on 27L at 1516 local, and presumably failed to vacate the runway for some reason. The next two inbounds, BAW268 and JAL401, went around from short finals, followed by BAW395B and DLH910 which both broke off their approaches at about 4 DME. BAW891, which was next, was swapped to 27R.

All 4 GAs subsequently landed on the re-opened 27L, starting with BAW395B at 1528.

Doesn't look like a brake/hydraulics issue on this occasion as the A320 in question went back out on the 1645 departure to Barcelona.

[FlyingEagle21]

[QUOTE]Quote:
The only noticeable interruption in 27L landings yesterday, between the 3pm swap and a change to easterlies at 9pm, was for 10 minutes from around 15:20.

If you wait a day or so, WebTrak should be able to tell you what happened, though not why.

Three GAs in a row is pretty unusual, but not unknown, last time I recall noticing that was mid-December last.
Looks like there were in fact 4 consecutive missed approaches on Wednesday afternoon.

BAW639 (A320 G-EUUT) landed on 27L at 1516 local, and presumably failed to vacate the runway for some reason. The next two inbounds, BAW268 and JAL401, went around from short finals, followed by BAW395B and DLH910 which both broke off their approaches at about 4 DME. BAW891, which was next, was swapped to 27R.

All 4 GAs subsequently landed on the re-opened 27L, starting with BAW395B at 1528.

[DaveReidUK]

That's odd, I could have sworn I just said all that. :O

[yeo valley]

perhaps thinking there was if missed first posting would catch second one.

[FlyingEagle21]

That's odd, I could have sworn I just said all that.

Sorry I posted from my phone and I guess it didn't quite work!

[ArtfulDodger]

Story with Picture and time lapse video here......

Heathrow unveils massive Union Jack on runway to celebrate the Jubilee (http://wp.me/p2jrV4-AG)

[WHBM]

That doesn't look like it is "on the runway" at all, does it ? In fact in that position you wonder who it will be visible to at all, apart maybe to starboard side pax during a late go-around.

[Skipness One Echo]

In fact in that position you wonder who it will be visible to at all, apart maybe to starboard side pax during a late go-around.
Pretty visible from 27R there, it's a nice thought.

[IFRKING]

I was shocked when read this article.

Heathrow’s runways and terminals should be bulldozed to make way for a “garden city”, says a new report to be published tomorrow.

Former government adviser Graeme Bell said it was time to “reinvent” the site that is increasingly ill-suited to the needs of a modern hub airport.

Airline bosses prefer a third runway at Heathrow to solve London’s capacity crisis rather than a disruptive shift.

But Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary. Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.

Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.

The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.

His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees four low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and two urban villages of about 10,000 in total. As well as homes, it would have shops and offices that would make it a “west London counterpoint to Canary Wharf” and an educational campus based at the Terminal 5 building, the only structure that would definitely be kept.

There would also be 1,000 acres of parkland — roughly the same as Regent’s Park, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together — and 86 acres of open water, more than three times the size of the Serpentine. The garden city would be served by the four existing railway stations and a new Crossrail station.

Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.

He said: “Rather than park in a BAA car park, which costs an arm and a leg, I decided to park in one of the streets off the A4 close to the end of one of the runways. I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell. I thought, ‘This is a really bad use of a piece of land inside the M25.’ Airports ought to be accessible but outside the city limits.”

Mr Bell said he had not costed Heathrow Garden City but said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable.



Published date:29/05/12
Source:Tory MPs: Build third Heathrow runway for jobs and trade - Politics - News - Evening Standard (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/politics/tory-mps-build-third-heathrow-runway-for-jobs-and-trade-7800465.html)

[fireflybob]

Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.


They obviously let him out of the Exeter asylum for the day!

What is really frightening is that someone who is a director of planning can even begin to think of such crazy ideas!

[ETOPS]

I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell.

So move it to a completely unspoilt area and subject the people there :confused:

Barking mad.............:ugh:

[Tableview]

Former government adviser Graeme Bell ..........

Note 'former'. Perhaps he should have stuck to inventing telephones. No, sorry, I forgot, that requires a brain, something this person clearly does not possess.

[IFRKING]

They must wake up:zzz: sounds insane

Heathrow’s runways and terminals should be bulldozed to make way for a “garden city”, says a new report to be published tomorrow.

Former government adviser Graeme Bell said it was time to “reinvent” the site that is increasingly ill-suited to the needs of a modern hub airport.

Airline bosses prefer a third runway at Heathrow to solve London’s capacity crisis rather than a disruptive shift.

But Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary. Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.

Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.

The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.

His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees four low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and two urban villages of about 10,000 in total. As well as homes, it would have shops and offices that would make it a “west London counterpoint to Canary Wharf” and an educational campus based at the Terminal 5 building, the only structure that would definitely be kept.

There would also be 1,000 acres of parkland — roughly the same as Regent’s Park, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together — and 86 acres of open water, more than three times the size of the Serpentine. The garden city would be served by the four existing railway stations and a new Crossrail station.

Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.

He said: “Rather than park in a BAA car park, which costs an arm and a leg, I decided to park in one of the streets off the A4 close to the end of one of the runways. I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell. I thought, ‘This is a really bad use of a piece of land inside the M25.’ Airports ought to be accessible but outside the city limits.”

Mr Bell said he had not costed Heathrow Garden City but said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/incoming/article7793309.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/garden-city.jpg

Date published:29/05/12
Source: Government adviser suggests radical Heathrow Airport plan: (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/transport/government-adviser-suggests-radical-heathrow-airport-plan-forget-a-third-runway-turn-it-into-a-garden-city-7793397.html)

[IFRKING]

As you can see from the image (botton left corner),they want to turn T5 into an educational campus.

[fireflybob]

Has this guy given any thought to the 100,000s of people who's lives would be turned upside down by such an inane suggestion?

I am thinking of all those employed in and associated with the air transport business at Heathrow, not to mention the disruption caused by building works on such an extensive scale over several years.

I would suggest the addition of a 3rd runway at LHR would probably cause far less disruption and probably keep many more gainfully employed that this gentleman's wild plans.

[Richard Taylor]

Mr Bell has come up with a very interesting concept - in another place, it may even have merit. But there won't be any political will to allow it to happen. Plus countless legal challenges which will bog it down. And, no doubt as with most proposals to construct anything in the UK, the cost will quadruple - at least. Then it will gather dust in some council vault somewhere. The End.

[airsmiles]

It's not just the existing airport direct/indirect employment to consider. Many businesses have corporate offices west of Heathrow for easy access and they would want to relocate should an estuary airport be built.

Relocating the UK's primary airport is a truly mammoth project, but less so if a suitable site could be found west, rather than east of central London.

[WHBM]

Why doesn't he build his Garden City in the Isle of Grain ? :)

[Skipness One Echo]

For God's sake, speaking of bad smells, how many recall LHR when the wind blew from the West? Pre T5? Perry Oaks?

[IFRKING]

Published on: 29 May 2012 08:13 am

Heathrow’s runways and terminals should be bulldozed to make way for a “garden city”, says a new report to be published tomorrow.

Former government adviser Graeme Bell said it was time to “reinvent” the site that is increasingly ill-suited to the needs of a modern hub airport.

Airline bosses prefer a third runway at Heathrow to solve London’s capacity crisis rather than a disruptive shift.

But Mr Bell is in favour of a new airport elsewhere, possibly the Thames Estuary. Many experts believe that would only be viable if Heathrow, which supports 250,000 jobs, was closed down.

Mr Bell said the five square mile airport site would be the perfect location for a new sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb and Welwyn Garden City.

The senior planning chief said the demolition of Heathrow, which started life as Harmondsworth Aerodrome in 1930, could provide “the biggest redevelopment site in Europe”.

His 16-page paper Heathrow Garden City by the Town and Country Planning Association, foresees four low-density garden suburbs with “allotments, community gardens and orchards” of about 5,000 people each and two urban villages of about 10,000 in total. As well as homes, it would have shops and offices that would make it a “west London counterpoint to Canary Wharf” and an educational campus based at the Terminal 5 building, the only structure that would definitely be kept.

There would also be 1,000 acres of parkland — roughly the same as Regent’s Park, Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens put together — and 86 acres of open water, more than three times the size of the Serpentine. The garden city would be served by the four existing railway stations and a new Crossrail station.

Mr Bell, currently director of planning for Devon county council, said he was inspired to draw up his vision when he drove to pick up a friend from Heathrow.

He said: “Rather than park in a BAA car park, which costs an arm and a leg, I decided to park in one of the streets off the A4 close to the end of one of the runways. I was aware of the colossal noise when planes were taking off and the awful smell. It really can’t be doing you any good to live with that noise and smell. I thought, ‘This is a really bad use of a piece of land inside the M25.’ Airports ought to be accessible but outside the city limits.”

Mr Bell said he had not costed Heathrow Garden City but said the huge development value of the site would make it financially viable.


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/incoming/article7793309.ece/ALTERNATES/w620/garden-city.jpg

[Dannyboy39]

This person cannot be serious, surely?

Politicians, eh?

[Fairdealfrank]

Stick a golf a course (for the military) between the two runways and we can duplicate the old Bangkok-Don Muang, which, incidentally, is still open as a domestic airport.

And the shareholders of BAA will allow the sale of their biggest money-making enterprise because......................

[fireflybob]

When the next revolution in travel comes along a la Transporter via StarTrek certains airports need to be preserved as museums for people to visit in generations to come - "Yes they had these long swathes of concrete and a/c had to accelerate.....etc"

So really we need to apply for the LHR buildings to be listed status.

[jabird]

What is really frightening is that someone who is a director of planning can even begin to think of such crazy ideas!

There is nothing crazy at all about wanting to redevelop a former airport site, but the timeline usually works like this:

1) Identify site for new airport
2) Build new airport
3) Open new airport, old airport may also stay open (TSA, GMP, SZB etc)
4) If (3) results in closure, THEN redevelop site (MUC, DEN etc)

Frankly, I think his designs are actually rather mediocre. Throw in the buzzword "urban village" and "eco-city" and put a few trees round it, and you produce the kind of project I would expect any half competent urban planning student to come up with.

Considering the huge investment that has gone (and is still going) into surface access at Heathrow, I would expect substantial dense commercial, retail and residential development around the main stations, especially the current Heathrow Central and T5.

Rather than allotments and what is actually nothing other than suburban sprawl rebranded, any new development on the site should actually be more like Canary Wharf, or perhaps more like La Defense in Paris, with a row of skyscrapers between T5 and the CTA.

Anyway, all this really is academic, as for the time being at least, Heathrow is very much a going concern.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, I think there's a certain amount of confusion about cause-and-effect in relation to the proposal.

AFAIK, the gentleman concerned isn't saying that a Thames Estuary Airport is required in order that Heathrow can be turned into a garden city.

But, on the other hand, if a TEA is built, nobody seriously believes that Heathrow can or will remain open a) because of airspace conflicts and b) because if it did, no airline would voluntarily leave LHR given the choice.

So, if Borisport or Foster's proposal were to get built, Heathrow would of necessity close and there would indeed be many thousands of acres of redundant real estate, in which case redevelopment would be the obvious option.

All highly theoretical at this point in time, of course.

[Skipness One Echo]

More importantly the local economy would be utterly decimated.

[PAXboy]

... sustainable community of more than 30,000 residents in the traditions of Hampstead Garden Suburb ...Has he taken a drive/walk through HGS recently??

Sustainable?? Has he counted the Range Rovers, heated indoor swimming pools? Has he looked to see how many people that have made money by subdiving their plot and selling off?

Still, reading it made me smile.

[Fairdealfrank]

None of the above, interesting as it is, explains why the shareholders of BAA would agree to the sale of their biggest money-making enterprise!

Without this, no new major hub airport that is intended to replace LHR, whether in the estuary or otherwise, would be viable.

Quote: "1) Identify site for new airport
2) Build new airport
3) Open new airport, old airport may also stay open (TSA, GMP, SZB etc)
4) If (3) results in closure, THEN redevelop site (MUC, DEN etc)"

1. In most of the cases where this has happened the "old" airport has remained open: ORY/CDG, LGA/JFK, CIA/FCO, SVO/DME, SHA/PVG, GMP/ICN, HND/NRT, DMK/BKK, YUL/YMQ, etc., are just a few examples of many.

2. In most of the cases where this has happened, the airports concerned were/are publicly owned.

Quote:
"More importantly the local economy would be utterly decimated. "

Exactly, and that is the deal breaker (if there is one).

[Heathrow Harry]

Firefly Bob wrote:-

"Has this guy given any thought to the 100,000s of people who's lives would be turned upside down by such an inane suggestion?"

remember what happened to the mining industry?

[petey156]

or has the author thought about all the jobs that would be lost....

[Seljuk22]

A380 on EK029/030 pushed back to 01 February 2013.

[DaveReidUK]

or has the author thought about all the jobs that would be lost....

Doh.

If Heathrow is closed (as it would be if a Thames Estuary airport were ever built), then jobs would be lost whether it was turned into a garden city, a theme park, or frozen in aspic as a monument to 70 years of UK aviation policy.

If it's the closure scenario that you have a problem with, that's a completely different issue. Debate that sensibly, by all means, but the author's proposals for the aftermath have no bearing on it.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "remember what happened to the mining industry?"

Very well indeed, why would we want to decimate yet another industry, particularly one that is a UK success story? Admittedly governments have been trying to do this by stealth: disproportionate APD increases, prohibiting expansion where it's needed, etc..

The mining industry was spread out over large parts of the country, mainly in parts that don't vote conservative. The decimation mentioned by petey156 and Skipness One Echo would be concentrated in a relatively small geographical area of the Thames valley.

Quote: "If Heathrow is closed (as it would be if a Thames Estuary airport were ever built), then jobs would be lost whether it was turned into a garden city, a theme park, or frozen in aspic as a monument to 70 years of UK aviation policy."

Once again you mention the closure of LHR, forget it, it won't happen, the share holders of BAA will not allow it. Why would they?

Apologies if banging on about this is becoming tedious, but it is a fundamental question that must be answered. If this issue is not addressed, "Silver Island" or any other schemes will remain a fantasy.

Quote: "If it's the closure scenario that you have a problem with, that's a completely different issue. Debate that sensibly, by all means, but the author's proposals for the aftermath have no bearing on it."

It's not so much an issue with closure, but the failure of the advocates of replacing LHR with "Silver Island" (or and other schemes) to face up to reality and answer the fundamental question.

[DaveReidUK]

Once again you mention the closure of LHR, forget it, it won't happen, the share holders of BAA will not allow it. Why would they?

Shareholders may get to vote at the BAA AGM, but that doesn't mean they get to formulate government airport policy.

I don't suppose they were thrilled about the enforced sale of Gatwick, Stansted and Edinburgh either, but they didn't have any choice.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Shareholders may get to vote at the BAA AGM, but that doesn't mean they get to formulate government airport policy."

Government policy is for privately owned airports, and has been for ages, so they would be unlikely to nationalise LHR in order to close it. Any attempts to do so would probably be illegal and challenged in the courts. Years of litigation could follow.

Bearing in mind that the other alternative costs the government nothing, it is unlikely that the government would have the stomach (and the spare cash) for such a fight when there are other priorities, not least the economy.

Yet another U-turn is so much easier.

[Skipness One Echo]

A380 on EK029/030 pushed back to 01 February 2013.

SQ308 / 319 has upgauged to the A380 from the B777-300ER as of June 1st.
KE907 / 908 is also now operating mainly as B777-300ER instead of the usual B747-400.

[jabird]

1. In most of the cases where this has happened the "old" airport has remained open: ORY/CDG, LGA/JFK, CIA/FCO, SVO/DME, SHA/PVG, GMP/ICN, HND/NRT, DMK/BKK, YUL/YMQ, etc., are just a few examples of many.

Except that in the case of Montreal, one of the airports DID eventually close - YMQ!

[Skipness One Echo]

Singapore adding a fourth SIN-LHR service from ~ Sep.
SQ306 will see the return of the B777-300ER onto the route after the route recently was upgauged to triple daily A388.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "Shareholders may get to vote at the BAA AGM, but that doesn't mean they get to formulate government airport policy."

Government policy does not always prevail, for example, it is government policy for bonuses not to be paid for bankers and top CEOs who fail. How well is that one enforced?

Quote: "I don't suppose they were thrilled about the enforced sale of Gatwick, Stansted and Edinburgh either, but they didn't have any choice."

Don't remember those airports being closed down. STN hasn't been sold, yet. Interesting, isn't it, how the monopoloies commission appears to be turning a BAA monopoly into a BAA/GIP duopoly! Ho hum.

Quote: "Except that in the case of Montreal, one of the airports DID eventually close - YMQ!"

Indeed, the new "replacement" site, Mirabel YMQ, was eventually closed to pax, and all traffic reverted to the original airport, Dorval YUL, which remained opened throughout. AFAIK, YMQ is now just a cargo airport.

[Seljuk22]

SAA will cancel CPT-LHR from 15th August

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "SAA will cancel CPT-LHR from 15th August"

Another example of a carrier unable to make money operating longhaul routes that do not start or end at it's hub?

One for the BHX thread?

[davidjohnson6]

FairDeal - I accept that Cape Town is not a major hub for SAA but with about 9 short haul routes on SAA from CPT it's not exactly a remote spoke either. Presumably SAA was helped partly by bmi Star feed until sold by Lufthansa.

However the point remains - when does a station with characteristics of a focus city become able to support long haul (ie a true hub) or when does a small hub cease to be able to support long haul ?

The world is grey (not black and white) amd I'm curious as to what the answer is - apologies for thread drift

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "FairDeal - I accept that Cape Town is not a major hub for SAA but with about 9 short haul routes on SAA from CPT it's not exactly a remote spoke either."

In fairness, davidjohnson6, did specifically mention longhaul in my post!

Quote: "Presumably SAA was helped partly by bmi Star feed until sold by Lufthansa."

Makes sense, maybe there wasn't as much O&D and VFR traffic as would be expected. Wasn't SA at MAN back in the day?

Quote: "However the point remains - when does a station with characteristics of a focus city become able to support long haul (ie a true hub) or when does a small hub cease to be able to support long haul ?"

The world is grey (not black and white) amd I'm curious as to what the answer is - apologies for thread drift "

It's a good question, only mentioned SA LHR-CPT because it illustrates that this isn't purely a European situation. To date we've only had examples of the UK, France and Germany.

On the other hand, for example, JJ hubs at GRU but makes its focus city GIG work very well with longhaul to several longhaul cities.

[PAXboy]

SAA will cancel CPT-LHR from 15th August
As I understand that, SAA is having a fairly major rejig of its routes. One of the reasons is a change in their markets (Perth now strengthening, I read) and another is to get better utilisation.

Anyone that knows the LHR~JNB/CPT route knows that the preference for Bix paz to travel overnight and for holiday pax not to take an entire day in travelling, means that the a/c has to sit on the ground for 12, even 14 hours when down route. Sometimes there is a daylight leg but mostly they are night.

For SA that means both the JNB and CPT machines having to be towed off stand to be parked up and then towed back after a day of earning no money. That's expensive.

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: "For SA that means both the JNB and CPT machines having to be towed off stand to be parked up and then towed back after a day of earning no money. That's expensive."

True enough, good point!

[WHBM]

For SA that means both the JNB and CPT machines having to be towed off stand to be parked up and then towed back after a day of earning no money. That's expensive.
This is just a characteristic to accept on long-haul flights that run pretty much in the same time zone. The same applies to New York-Buenos Aires, which is run in the same overnight both ways manner.

If you take 12 hours for a north-south sector a daylight flight leaving at say 8 am and arriving at 8 pm is not viable because you lose good connection opportunities at both ends, at one the first inbounds have not come in at say 6.30 am, and at the other end the last outbounds are all gone by say 9.30 pm. So you can only really do this where you have heavy O&D. The UK to South Africa market is not like this so overnights both ways is the only way to go. Or not at all if you don't get the loads.

BMI was good LHR feed for Star carriers at Heathrow (this was, of course, one reason why they lost so much money, just getting a small share of long distance passengers' revenue) and so I can't see it being the last such reduction. Some of Air Canada's services to smaller Canadian points not served through Frankfurt are probably in a similar position, for example.

[Skipness One Echo]

In more positive news, the CAN-LHR China Southern service is operating after all.

[jabird]

Surely the demand is there for CPT, after all fares on this route are usually much more than equivalent sector lengths.

What is the overall effect on operating costs of having such a long down period - after all the plane might not be earning money during this time, but it isn't burning fuel either?

I recall Flyglobespan had a pop at CPT from MAN, not sure if the route ever actually started? If it did, it was only for a short season. Downtime must have been one of the reasons why Oasis didn't last long.

VS only operate CPT seasonally - so will BA be taking advantage of the reduced competition, or is it just a chance to increase yields still further?

[Cyrano]

Good analysis of LHR-CPT here (http://www.centreforaviation.com/analysis/south-african-airways-ends-cape-town-london-service-for-bigger-growth-in-west-africa-and-beyond-75711), including some yield figures. Given that SAA's yield on LHR-CPT is half the yield on CPT-PER, you can understand why they are not so keen on it. Note also (as pointed out here): they are continuing to serve the LHR-CPT market, just not non-stop - they will offer connecting flights via JNB. Given the (obvious) price-sensitivity of the market, that seems a reasonable way to go.

C.

[PAXboy]

Agreed WHBM, it is a real problem. Both BA and VS have to be parked up during the day too. Both of them have tried the immediate turn with a daylight return (or daylight out) but it is not liked for the obvious reasons.

When visiting either JNB or CPT, you can see all the big European birds lined up in the sun for the day.

The route has ALWAYS been expensive. Not just the fact of having the machine sit for 12 hours but the high demand and tight restrictions by SA govt, keep the route a cash cow.

Thread drift ...
Some of the old European carriers used to do the immediate turn, SABENA and others and I did enjoy the daylight. I recall doing a daylight from JNB when I was a teenager with my parents in a Super VC-10 and arriving at LHR to go into an hotel. My parents found it good - I could hardly sleep for excitement!

I did a daylight outbound with BA in August 2009 to JNB and the flight was only about 50%. My records show that, the last time I did a daylight return with VS was from CPT in Nov 2000.

I see that BA are currently running BA0034 as a daylight return from JNB in August on three days of the week but this seems to be for Southern Winter Season only.

Thanks for the link Cyrano.

[Fairdealfrank]

Interestingly, at Prime Ministers Questions today, Zac Goldsmith (Con, Richmond Park) asked the first question. Predictably, he enquired if the government was back-tracking on its opposition to LHR expansion. Tellingly, Call-Me-Dave did not rule it out. As his his wont, he didn't answer the question directly "yes" or "no", but left the door wide open.

Many in the government, at least on the Conservative side (the Libdems will never see sense on this one) appear to have "woken up and smelt the coffee" and want to do the U-turn on LHR expansion. Having done so many U-turns already, the government ought to find it easy! Maybe it's time for Call-Me-Dave to "grow a pair" and stop allowing Clegg to bully him.

[Dannyboy39]

Something I noticed yesterday when I was at LHR was that mixed mode operations were being trialled again.

Got to say it was a lot more peaceful around the boundary areas than usual. And of course, as the operator can squeeze more flights in and out, surely its a no brainer?

[Seljuk22]

Etihad will introduce B77W (8 First, 40 Business, 282 Economy) on all its LHR flights until next summer. The replacement of A346 (286 seats) means an increase of 132 seats per day.

from 1st July EY011/012 will see the B77W
from 1st January to 31st January B77W will replace A346 on EY017/018
from 1st February EY019/020 operates with 777-300ER
from 31st March all 3 flights operated by B77W

[DaveReidUK]

Something I noticed yesterday when I was at LHR was that mixed mode operations were being trialled again.

Got to say it was a lot more peaceful around the boundary areas than usual. And of course, as the operator can squeeze more flights in and out, surely its a no brainer?

Unless you're talking about some pre-0700 arrivals landing on the departure runway (normal practice), I think you might be referring to the late runway changeover yesterday (at 8pm), presumably due to the strong winds.

There certainly aren't supposed to be any mixed-mode trials in progress at the moment, although they restart at the beginning of next month.

[118.70]

Presumably TEAM (under the "old" triggers) could be invoked if delays built up sufficiently........

I'm still awaiting the monthly report for the trials in February. Wonder if it will appear before the next one starts........

For the next round of trials, does anyone know what "aircraft will MOSTLY be routed within existing noise protection routes means" ? Is it likely to be 1 in a 100 planes will do something completely off the wall ? Or half the planes on a track will do an excursion outside the NPR over X to the north of the zone and the other half will do an excursion over Y to the south ?

[Dannyboy39]

My eyes (hopefully!) don't deceive me, but around 0830 yesterday morning there were arrivals on both 27L and 27R, alternating fairly evenly. And continued throughout the day, although it seemed like there were more arrivals on 27L.

[Gonzo]

From BAA's WebTrak (http://webtrak.bksv.com/lhr) tool, you can view flights on the 16th from 0830. There's a Lufthansa that touches down on 27R at about that time, then about ten mins later there's an Aer Lingus on 27R. Looks like standard TEAM to me (up to 6 aircraft per hour landing on the departure runway when inbound delay reaches 20 minutes).

[DaveReidUK]

I'm still awaiting the monthly report for the trials in February. Wonder if it will appear before the next one starts........

I believe there has also been a commitment made to reissue the November and December reports, as well as some of the daily stats which are distinctly shaky in some areas. Presumably we'll see those in the next couple of weeks, before the start of Phase II.

For the next round of trials, does anyone know what "aircraft will MOSTLY be routed within existing noise protection routes means" ? Is it likely to be 1 in a 100 planes will do something completely off the wall ? Or half the planes on a track will do an excursion outside the NPR over X to the north of the zone and the other half will do an excursion over Y to the south ?

I've been wondering that too - everyone I've asked about it seems to have a different interpretation.

The object of the exercise is to reduce the interval between successive departures that are planned to use the same SID - currently 2 minutes - down to 1 minute. That implies departure tracks immediately after takeoff that diverge by at least 45°, so something along the lines of your description would sound reasonable. I don't know how many pairs of consecutive departures on the same SID there are in a typical day, and I have no idea what "mostly routed within existing NPRs" is supposed to mean in this context.

Doubtless all will be revealed in July.

[Trinity 09L]

Forty years today, since that tragic day

[jabird]

Many in the government, at least on the Conservative side (the Libdems will never see sense on this one) appear to have "woken up and smelt the coffee" and want to do the U-turn on LHR expansion.

There is an ad at Coventry station presenting the different view.

It is something along the lines of "do a U turn, use BHX".

Still can't quite work out if they mean get off the train and turn back to BHX or if they mean government should do a "u-turn" and support Brum. Neither really makes much sense to me, especially as Brum seem to think they can double capacity with ZERO new infrastructure, in which case they wouldn't need the government to do anything!

[Fairdealfrank]

Mixed mode

It should be fairly obvious to all that without expansion, mixed mode operations will be brought in, probably by stealth. It's the only other way to meet demand, for now at least, and squeeze in perhaps another 10% more movements.

That being the case, the alternating mornings and afternoons free of noise for those under the flightpath will be a thing of the past. Is this really what those MPs who oppose expansion really want for their constituents?


Quote: "Papa India
Forty years today, since that tragic day"

Indeed it is.


Quote: "There is an ad at Coventry station presenting the different view.

It is something along the lines of "do a U turn, use BHX".

Still can't quite work out if they mean get off the train and turn back to BHX or if they mean government should do a "u-turn" and support Brum. Neither really makes much sense to me, especially as Brum seem to think they can double capacity with ZERO new infrastructure, in which case they wouldn't need the government to do anything!"

All very well, but the airlines need to be persuaded to use BHX. If they remain unconvinced, everything else is academic!

[PAXboy]

Trinity 09L Papa India
Forty years today, since that tragic dayA interesting thread running in History: http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/488300-g-arpi-trident-tragedy-40-years-ago-today.html

[Fairdealfrank]

The latest wheeze for avoiding a third rwy is permanent mixed mode, which, apparently, can squeeze in another 120,000 movements, or 25% extra, (as reported on Radio Jackie news the other day).

Residents under the flightpath will lose their daily half-day of quiet, but are being softened up for it by the ongoing "trials". Ironically, more rwys really is in their (our) interests!

Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock. Of course it will do nothing to combat the congestion and delays, and if there's bad weather or an "incident", the backlog created will take even longer to shift.

With 600,000 annual movements on just 2 rwys, would this make LHR the first airport to be operating at 125% capacity?

[DaveReidUK]

Had thought that only another 10% could be extracted from mixed mode, so it came as quite a shock.

I would agree that 25% is absurd - the conventional wisdom seems to be that 15% is about the maximum that could be achieved:

"The penultimate scenario is the application of full capacity mixed mode operations. This cannot be modelled using statistics derived from current operations as the expected increase of around 15% in capacity and the much changed operational procedures cannot be reasonably extrapolated from the current situation. For this reason, the delay curve and validation of the statistical approach have been performed using data obtained from NATS HERMES simulation, which gives the only accepted prediction of mixed mode operations at Heathrow."

Reading the article in the Independent, the mythical 25% seems to have been obtained by simply doubling Gatwick's capacity of 54 movements/hour and comparing that to Heathrow's current maximum movement rate of 87/hour.

[Seljuk22]

AA will introduce its B777-300ER (3-class F8 C52 Y250) on following routes:

from 30th January 2013 DFW-LHR
from 14th February 2013 JFK-LHR
from 1st June 2013 LAX-LHR

[manrow]

Somehow, soon, Heathrow has to move on.
It used to be hub for the rest of at least Europe, now many other European hubs have appeared, and Heathrow numbers reduce.