Heathrow-2

[DaveReidUK]

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

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

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[Seljuk22]

SAS Ireland to base 5 A320neo to take over existing routes from SAS out of LHR
SAS Ireland startet in London-Heathrow und Malaga (http://www.aero.de/news-27044/SAS-Ireland-startet-in-London-Heathrow-und-Malaga2.html)

[DaveReidUK]

For several years, Heathrow has published a quarterly league table as part of its FlyQuiet programme showing which airlines perform best on several noise metrics, although it has never disclosed exactly how the rankings are worked out. BA Short Haul always manages to come top of the table. :O

This year Heathrow has commendably not only added two more emissions-related metrics (hence now "Fly Quiet & Clean"), but has also revealed for the first time the process used to derive the overall league table positions, based on the rankings for each individual metric. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have grasped how its own methodology works, and as a result has made a complete dog's breakfast of calculating the league table positions and points.

BA Short Haul (as usual) is shown as top, but should be down in fifth place based on its individual metric rankings (it's near the bottom on one of the emissions metrics).

Some airlines (for example PK, TK, LY) get more than twice as many points as their performance actually merits and CX gets a 14-place hike up the table from where it should be.

Carriers that should be tied on points based on their metric rankings (e.g. American and Aegean) finish up to 9 places apart in the league table.

Expect the dodgy results to be pulled and correct ones substituted pretty soon, but in the meantime they can be viewed here: The League Table Q1 2017 (http://www.heathrowflyquietandclean.com/q1-2017/)


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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[Skipness One Echo]

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[commit aviation]

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[commit aviation]

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

[DaveReidUK]

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

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

[Skipness One Echo]

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[Skipness One Echo]

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

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

[compton3bravo]

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[Porky Speedpig]

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

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

[Skipness One Echo]

PR flight an A340/300 or 600 scheduled to depart at 22.20 either west or east depending on ops.
It's a -300, far from the noisiest aircraft at LHR, and bound for Manila so heading East. If you download fr24 on your smartphone it will answer all these questions for you.

[118.70]

Cranford Agreement is gone and a third runway is coming so late evening 09L departures will likely be more common to share the noise pain.Aren't the north-turning departing flights from 09L unprotected by the 6.5km noise monitors ?

The July 2014 "Decision" on the position for new monitors said :
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/330354/night-noise-decision.pdfhttp://
We have therefore decided that the proposed sites (and their positional adjustments) are the best available and should be implemented accordingly at the approximate locations indicated in the Stage 2 Consultation document, although we accept that the precise location for any new monitor may be subject to final landowner agreement.
To operate the northern runway efficiently for easterly departures, and following any final planning approval, changes are first required to some of Heathrow's taxiways which we understand could take several months (or years). However, we see no reason for this to delay any new monitoring arrangements, as 09L departures are currently not prevented from taking place when operational conditions allow.What chance them getting them up and running ?

[ZOOKER]

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

[c52]

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

[Trinity 09L]

It's a -300, far from the noisiest aircraft at LHR, and bound for Manila so heading East. If you download fr24 on your smartphone it will answer all these questions for you.
The aircraft are departing to the west. The cranford agreement has been removed/closed however HAL have decided not to go ahead as they now state taxiways have to be changed other than those planned. Therefore no easterly ops on 09L until 2023.

[kar42]

however HAL have decided not to go ahead as they now state taxiways have to be changed other than those planned. Therefore no easterly ops on 09L until 2023.

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

[Skipness One Echo]

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

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

[Navpi]

New transport committee chair pins support to Heathrow mast.

New City Metric Article - Lilian Greenwood MP (http://www.liliangreenwood.co.uk/new_city_metric_article)

Right decison BUT somewhat concerned re impartiality?

[eggc]

Meanwhile...

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

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

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

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

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

[118.70]

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

London Borough of Hillingdon - Planning (http://planning.hillingdon.gov.uk/OcellaWeb/showDocuments?reference=41573/APP/2013/1288&module=plhttp://)

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

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

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

[118.70]

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

It can be accessed from the link given at

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

[compton3bravo]

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

[22/04]

It is just another in a sequence - disappointing UK.

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

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

[compton3bravo]

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

[Navpi]

Do we have the link re

"making best use of airport capacity " ?

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

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

[Hussar 54]

A general moan just to get it off my chest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rant over....

[Navpi]

Wait till work starts on M25 M4 expansion re RW3.

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

[Trinity 09L]

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

[DaveReidUK]

Labour leaders could vote against allowing a third runway to be built at Heathrow due to environmental concerns about pollution.

The government wants to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but a final vote will not be taken in the House of Commons until 2018.

Labour has acknowledged the need for extra runway capacity in the south-east but has raised questions about the potential pollution and reduction in air quality created by Heathrow expansion.

Party sources have told the Financial Times that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is likely to vote against Heathrow expansion. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is also an opponent of a third runway.

One Labour source told the FT: "It has to pass our tests and no one here expects that to be likely”; while another said: “If the vote is any time soon there is no way we would back it, mainly on the basis of air quality, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon."Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion | Buying Business Travel (http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2427604-labour-could-turn-against-heathrow-expansion)

[Dannyboy39]

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

End of test.

[inOban]

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

[DaveReidUK]

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

Yes, that's my understanding.

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

[LGS6753]

....but Labour doesn't rely on logical argument when it comes to any other of its policies.

[Trinity 09L]

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

That will be the motor vehicles that look like lorries carrying freight, supplies etc, and coaches for staff transport & passengers to LHR. Also the construction vehicles, and of course the tankers fuelling the aircraft.:ouch:

[Skipness One Echo]

Which they're trying to mitigate by discouraging the use of private cars to Heathrow. I hope this will come down to UNITE pressuring Corbyn to put jobs before student politics, reminding him it was a Labour gov that approved this only for Cameron to stop it again.

[Heathrow Harry]

A Labour Govt run by Corbyn's old mates Tony Bliar and Big Gordo...

oh yes - I'm sure that'll convince him.........................

[PAXboy]

Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame.

To return the airport, good to see this eventhough it will make no diff.

BA attacks Border Force for 'dreadful' delays - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41051140)

[DaveReidUK]

BA attacks Border Force for 'dreadful' delays - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41051140)

Presumably if the ePassport gates worked as originally intended, they could be left operating 24 hours a day, with only a token number of Border Force personnel required to be on hand to deal with poor souls like me who have a passport with a duff chip. :O

[Heathrow Harry]

"Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame."

True but suggesting, as Skipness did, that mentioning them to the Sainted Jeremy will get him to back R3 is.... mistaken IMHO. He's viscerally against ANYTHING & EVERYTHING the two muppets were behind

[NWSRG]

Presumably if the ePassport gates worked as originally intended, they could be left operating 24 hours a day, with only a token number of Border Force personnel required to be on hand to deal with poor souls like me who have a passport with a duff chip. :O

Dave, I said exactly the same thing about Gatwick...damn things never, ever work for me.

And then the roaming Border Security agent has to direct you back into another queue...

(It's probably not very PC of me to say this, but same Border Security agent is quite often not of these parishes...)

[Skipness One Echo]

I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support.

As for "not of this parish", was flying out of LHR T5 a few weeks back when a Somali Muslim lady in head to foot black coverings walked past me in the queue and discreetly took a small package proferred to her by one of the HAL asian security staff who was about to go through the arch to go airside. Now they say "report anything suspicious" and I was actually about to ask what they were up to. On closer inspection, the muslim lady had a lanyard, so "staff" but not in uniform. Indeed exempt from uniform I think as she was then directing the queue of angol saxon post-Christian Europeans to keep us all safe from Islamist terror. She was even wearing black leather gloves......

[Heathrow Harry]

TBH she's probably a damn sight better at spotting a wrong 'un than you would be - on the other hand I'm sure you can spot someone wearing the wrong regimental tie at the Golf Club that she might miss....................

[pax britanica]

A few questions

Does a direct LHr to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb?

How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?

How will lack of long haul flights and destinations affect this country's ability to trade after Brexit. Surely the muppet show we have for a cabinet should 100% pro.

How many more runways will AMS FRA CDG have built by the time LHR 3 or an alternative is built

How many current Prune members will be still alive when this saga ends

[Skipness One Echo]

Heathrow Harry, disagree. Never played golf so shows you that judging people you've never clapped eyes on might not be your forte. In all seriousness given the stated wish of ISIS to recruit insiders, I genuinely believe hiring devout muslims who refuse to even adhere to the uniform is in any way smart

[Heathrow Harry]

A jest dear boy, a jest ........

And not all security or customs are in uniform anyway - I had a meeting last week with a senior Police Offcier who was on duty but in civis..................

TBH the best people to spot a rat are those who used to be rats....... or are close enough to know. A trotskyite can spot a communist at 400 yards (and vice versa) whereas to you or I they may well look like members of the Labour Party.

[DaveReidUK]

Does a direct LHR to XXX flight from LHR cause more or less pollution than the same trip via YYY and another few hours flying plus a second JetA 1 guzzling take off and climb?

It depends on the distance.

Landing at, say, Leeds on the way from LHR to Edinburgh is clearly going to burn more fuel than flying direct.

But flying non-stop from UK to Australia, as QF will do next year, burns more fuel than stopping enroute because of the need to depart heavy and tanker many tonnes of fuel over several thousand miles, instead of picking half of it up en route. Even allowing for the extra takeoff and landing, you still burn less if you stop halfway and fly lighter.

[Heathrow Harry]

Dave - didn't they talk about IF Rrefuelling at some point in the past?.........

[DaveReidUK]

Qantas ran an April Fool's spoof ad many years ago featuring non-stop UK/Australia 747 flights made possible by in-flight refuelling.

[WHBM]

That will be ... and of course the tankers fuelling the aircraft.
You are aware, of course, that Heathrow fuel is delivered by pipeline, and through a stand hydrant system ?

[canberra97]

WHBM

I'm pleased that someone actually corrected that schoolboy error, I was going to comment on that myself!

[DaveReidUK]

You are aware, of course, that Heathrow fuel is delivered by pipeline, and through a stand hydrant system ?

Yes, but you don't just connect one end of a hose to the hydrant and the other to the aircraft - there's still a vehicle involved, albeit not a tanker:

http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/9f411dd7e6ca415baee5a41c5893b5df/hydrant-truck-aircraft-refueler-at-work-j913f8.jpg

[Fairdealfrank]

Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion
Quote:
Labour leaders could vote against allowing a third runway to be built at Heathrow due to environmental concerns about pollution.

The government wants to go ahead with Heathrow expansion but a final vote will not be taken in the House of Commons until 2018.

Labour has acknowledged the need for extra runway capacity in the south-east but has raised questions about the potential pollution and reduction in air quality created by Heathrow expansion.

Party sources have told the Financial Times that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is likely to vote against Heathrow expansion. Shadow chancellor John McDonnell is also an opponent of a third runway.

One Labour source told the FT: "It has to pass our tests and no one here expects that to be likely”; while another said: “If the vote is any time soon there is no way we would back it, mainly on the basis of air quality, and that’s unlikely to change any time soon."
Labour could turn against Heathrow expansion | Buying Business Travel (http://buyingbusinesstravel.com/news/2427604-labour-could-turn-against-heathrow-expansion)
Flip flop flip flop

Same with brexit.




"Blair and Gordo are OUT of the frame."

True but suggesting, as Skipness did, that mentioning them to the Sainted Jeremy will get him to back R3 is.... mistaken IMHO. He's viscerally against ANYTHING & EVERYTHING the two muppets were behind Those "two muppets", masters of indecision, procrastinated, prevaricated and dithered just like those before and since, hence Cameron and his Libdem mates getting the opportunity to scrap it.


I was suggesting that a Labour govt approved expansion on the grounds of jobs and the economy, something a lot of people in the wider party and more importantly the unions, strongly support.Dear oh dear, the unions and most Labour MPs support Heathrow expansion.



How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM.

[Heathrow Harry]

and neither will Heathrow R3 frank.................

[Navpi]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randall_(British_politician)

This chap has just been appointed senior advisor!

[c52]

My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky?

[DaveReidUK]

09s or 27s ?

[c52]

27R in each case.

[Seljuk22]

Qantas
Qantas will re-route its daily Sydney-London A380 service via Singapore rather than Dubai
https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-and-emirates-to-extend-partnership/

[Trinity 09L]

WHBM & Canberra97 I except my error and whilst standing in the naughty corner (on leave) found that cargo, catering vehicles are also disguising diesel engines, and those tugs that tow or push back aircraft.:ooh:
DRUK thanks for the photo.

[DaveReidUK]

For several years, Heathrow has published a quarterly league table as part of its FlyQuiet programme showing which airlines perform best on several noise metrics, although it has never disclosed exactly how the rankings are worked out. BA Short Haul always manages to come top of the table. :O

This year Heathrow has commendably not only added two more emissions-related metrics (hence now "Fly Quiet & Clean"), but has also revealed for the first time the process used to derive the overall league table positions, based on the rankings for each individual metric. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to have grasped how its own methodology works, and as a result has made a complete dog's breakfast of calculating the league table positions and points.

BA Short Haul (as usual) is shown as top, but should be down in fifth place based on its individual metric rankings (it's near the bottom on one of the emissions metrics).

Some airlines (for example PK, TK, LY) get more than twice as many points as their performance actually merits and CX gets a 14-place hike up the table from where it should be.

Carriers that should be tied on points based on their metric rankings (e.g. American and Aegean) finish up to 9 places apart in the league table.

Expect the dodgy results to be pulled and correct ones substituted pretty soon, but in the meantime they can be viewed here: The League Table Q1 2017 (http://www.heathrowflyquietandclean.com/q1-2017/)

Well two months on and it would seem my optimism was misplaced - Heathrow continues to publish those dodgy Q1 stats and has clearly decided to brazen it out, maintaining disingenuously that it's not aware of any issues with the data, even though any bright GCSE Maths student could spot the flaky arithmetic a mile off.

However the message has clearly struck home - Heathrow published the stats for Q2 in mid-August, but this time around they are password-protected, thereby hiding them from public scrutiny, which completely negates the stated aim of Fly Quiet & Clean (http://www.heathrow.com/noise/latest-news/fly-quiet-and-clean-league-table) that "The 50 busiest airlines at Heathrow will now be publicly ranked on their work to reduce emissions and noise in their operations".

The League Table Q2 2017 (http://www.heathrowflyquietandclean.com/q2-2017/)

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote:
How much more environmental damage would building Boris island cause than just building R3 ?
Good question, but academic, Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM. and neither will Heathrow R3 frank................. The difference, Harry, is that my comment is fact, yours is balance of probability.

The government decided that Heathrow was full in 1977. The charter and IT business had already been pushed out to Luton, and new airlines were pushed out to Gatwick. Carriers like BUA and British Caledonian were banned from Heathrow (under the "second force" policy) as were all USA carriers except Pan Am and TWA thanks to the UK/USA Bermuda agreement. These days, Gatwick still acts as a waiting room for new carriers wishing to acquire Heathrow slots.

It has taken 40 years to NOT build another parallel rwy at Heathrow.

On that basis, how long do you think it would take to build an airport bigger than Heathrow and all the accompanying infrastructure and urbanisation at a Thames estuary site in the middle of nowhere? 200 years, 300 years?

Time to get real: even if Boris Island was going to be built, Heathrow would obviously STILL need a third and fourth parallel rwy in the interim, as it would be a very long interim and the existing situation at Heathrow is untenable. Having finally achieved a four rwy Heathrow, there would be no appetite to close it, and without its closure Boris Island is sunk.

The Boris Island thread is full of other reasons why this airport will never be built, so to reiterate, the statement that "Boris Island will never be built, even in the unlikely event of Boris becoming PM" is accurate and fact. The statement that "neither will Heathrow R3 frank" is conjecture, although the balance of probability may support that statement.

[Fairdealfrank]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Randall_(British_politician)

This chap has just been appointed senior advisor!

Former MP for Uxbridge, Boris's predecessor.



My last two flights from Heathrow have been non-stop from T5 to the parking stand at my destination (ABZ, FRA). Is the ability not to hang around the end of the runway for 20 minutes before take-off new, or was I just lucky?

Does occasionally happen although very much the exception than the rule. Very occasionally a straight-in landing also happens without any stacking, but again, not very often.

[DaveReidUK]

Well two months on and it would seem my optimism was misplaced - Heathrow continues to publish those dodgy Q1 stats and has clearly decided to brazen it out, maintaining disingenuously that it's not aware of any issues with the data, even though any bright GCSE Maths student could spot the flaky arithmetic a mile off.

A week later, and a few more facts have emerged. The plot thickens ...

Heathrow denies that it's mathematically challenged, and instead rather strangely maintains that nobody could possibly derive the Fly Quiet and Clean scores just based on the airlines' relative performance for each of the seven weighted metrics (despite the FQC website saying that that's exactly how the scoring does work).

Instead, it says, there are various fudge factors ("inputs"), which it won't divulge, but which are applied to the scores obtained from the airlines' relative performance, and have the happy effect of inflating those scores by an average of about 45%. Even worse, these increases aren't applied uniformly (some airlines have their scores more than doubled), which of course then alters the relative league table rankings.

Fortuitously, that has the effect of propelling BA from the Number 5 slot that its performance actually merits to its customary slot at the top of the table, so it can't be all bad. Unless you work for Aer Lingus, deprived of the Number 1 slot it deserves, or unfortunate carriers like SriLankan or Icelandair, who get shunted nearly 20 places down the table from where they should rightfully be.

A cynic might think that the more an airline pays in landing fees, the better its chances of being classified as quiet and clean. :O

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like we may be making progress, of a sort.

Heathrow has removed the references to the "Q2 2017 biggest climbers" that were based on the flawed Q1 stats and the still unpublished Q2 results (the latter are, reportedly, due to be unveiled this week).

Whether that's a precursor to a wholesale overhaul of the published Q1 scores remains to be seen, but it's an encouraging indication that Heathrow has been investing in new batteries for its calculators.

[DaveReidUK]

Looks like we may be making progress, of a sort.

Hmmm, looks like I spoke too soon. :ugh:

Q2 results were published today, with Delta convincingly meriting the Number One slot, due largely to being best performer for CDAs and track-keeping (the two highest-weighted metrics), joint highest-rated for Night Quota observance (with zero violations) and in the 20 best carriers for all but one of the other metrics.

Sadly, Heathrow's flaky maths has relegated DL to 7th place in the standings, for reasons known only to the number-crunchers there.

Other airlines featuring in the "we wuz robbed" stakes include Qantas, way down in 17th place despite its performance meriting the Number Three slot and Malaysian, unfairly shoved 11 places down from its rightful place in the Top Five just above Aer Lingus (who bizarrely get awarded an undeserved first place, perhaps to compensate for being robbed of it last time around).

You couldn't make this stuff up, though somebody clearly has. :O

[Heathrow Harry]

perhaps a reference to the BBC Radio 4 "More or Less" would bring out the figure fiddlers?

[DaveReidUK]

Or send the stats to Donald, to add to his collection of Alternative Facts. :O

Aside from the creative accounting, the headlines accompanying the results suggest that Heathrow may have a less-than-perfect grasp of what's happening on its own runways:

"Air India has climbed an astounding 37 places to place 5th this quarter, in part because of their use of Boeing Dreamliners at Heathrow, an aircraft that has 20-25% fewer C02 [sic] emissions and a smaller noise effect than the airplanes [sic] it replaces"Well, yes - except that AI has had the same schedule throughout the two quarters being compared (1 x 777, 3 x 787 daily), so their 37-place jump up the table between Q1 and Q2 (in reality a not-quite-so-meteoric 19-place rise to 13th place) can't possibly be attributed to non-existent equipment changes. :ugh:

In fact the airline hasn't actually improved its ranking at all on any of the noise or emissions metrics (according to Heathrow's own figures).

AI's league table hike is solely attributable to a much better ranking for track-keeping (it was in bottom place for the previous quarter) and a modest improvement for the Night Quota metric - neither of which have anything to do with the aircraft type being used.

[DaveReidUK]

The mystery deepens still further, were that possible ...

The results that rank "the 50 busiest airlines operating at Heathrow from April to June this year" strangely omit any details for Icelandair, MEA and Egyptair, all of whom maintained two daily flights throughout those three months.

And yet the likes of Croatian (9 flights per week) and China Southern (a single daily flight up to the beginning of June) are included.

Go figure, as our American cousins say.

[DaveReidUK]

Update:

Latest indications suggest that Heathrow finally realises that it has egg on its face as a result of its flaky arithmetic, but has dug itself in a hole so deep that it's struggling to find a face-saving way of climbing out.

Meanwhile, with an irony that won't be lost on regular PPRuNers, an airline whose name can't be mentioned on here and which only manages 35th place (out of 50) for both its NOx emissions and track-keeping performance, thereby forfeiting 248 of the 357 points available for those two metrics, nevertheless gets awarded an aggregate score of 900 out of 1,000.

I wish my accountant could be that creative. :O

[Heathrow Harry]

Silly not to 'fess up TBh - you just make yourself a sitting target in front of any judge/committee/ interviewer and it knocks your credibility sideways

[PAXboy]

"Heathrow" + "credibility" <Ahem> :p

[DaveReidUK]

Silly not to 'fess up TBh - you just make yourself a sitting target in front of any judge/committee/ interviewer and it knocks your credibility sideways

Quite so.

It's hard to tell whether we're seeing an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect) in action, or just plain old-fashioned hubris on the part of Heathrow. Maybe a bit of both.

Either way, reacting by burying its head in the sand and hoping the problem will go away isn't the kind of mature response one expects from a multi-billion pound company that wants the world to believe it's an environmentally responsible neighbour.

[canberra97]

Changing topic has there been any more demolition work commenced on Terminal 1 lately?

[Navpi]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-41513876 great news re Inverness!

[Skipness One Echo]

Pier 3 and 4 gone, 4A remains, Europier demolished.

[Heathrow Harry]

Todays Times quotes CAA saying LHR has defered publishing detailed plans for R3 until "no earlier than December" as they are trying to cut £ 6 Bn off the costs

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow announced in July that the planned T6 and related infrastructure would be cut from the plans, which will presumably account for a fair chunk of that £6.8 Bn.

[Trinity 09L]

DRUK
Will that mean that pax will walk from what is T6 but will also be named T5 satellite, as it is not an extra terminal situated elsewhere, :hmm: or just no shopping mall therein.
They need to save money to find a route for the A4. :suspect:
"as they are trying to cut £ 6 Bn off the costs" are they short of money?

[DaveReidUK]

The first few iterations of the R3 plan showed, initially, Terminal 6 just west of T5, roughly astride the A3044 Stanwell Moor Road, and three T6 satellites (with provision for a fourth) between 09L/27R and R3. The satellites were oriented N-S so that the stands pointed E-W. The main "T6A" had no provision for aircraft stands connected to it, only those on the satellites.

The "optimised" version that superseded the above (with R3 moved further south so as not to impinge on the current M4/M25 interchange) no longer had room between the runways for satellites oriented N-S, so they were rotated to be aligned E-W (stands pointing N-S) and reduced in number to two satellites.

The July announcement implied that T6A was no more and that the capacity of the existing terminals would be expanded instead. Where that leaves the previously planned satellites remains to be seen.

Clearly, increasing runway capacity (and movements) by up to 50% isn't feasible without a corresponding increase in the number of stands, so they will have to go somewhere.

[Trinity 09L]

These "terminals" are moving faster than the aircraft, can I suggest a location at Gatwick :p

[DaveReidUK]

At last, the mystery of "Quietgate" is solved !

Forget all the evidence about the published methodology not being followed, I'm given to understand from contacts on Heathrow's Community Noise Forum that at a recent meeting members were told by the airport that the Fly Quiet & Clean scores are arbitrary and were never intended to be taken literally. So, despite what it disingenuously says on the FQC website, there is no reason to expect that the points awarded will correspond to the airlines' ranking positions for individual noise and emissions metrics - that, apparently, doesn't produce the desired results.

Apparently, the FQC programme actually works by allowing Heathrow to spotlight particular airlines in respect of their environmental performance (good or bad), and the scores are assigned accordingly to put the appropriate emphasis on the airline(s) concerned. As the old saying goes, the end justifies the means.

A happy by-product of the manipulation of the scores is to make all Heathrow's airlines appear, on average, an extra 45% quieter and cleaner than their performance actually merits, and some of the worst airlines are shown as more than twice as quiet and clean as they really are. In other words it's a win-win for everyone, well for the airport and the airlines, at least.

Presumably we'll get used to more airlines showing meteoric quarter-on-quarter jumps in position, until we get to the point where all 50 airlines occupy the Number One slot. :O

So that's all good, then.

[canberra97]

Pier 3 and 4 gone, 4A remains, Europier demolished.

Thanks for the update, it would be good to keep up to date with what's going on with Terminal 1 so any further updates would be appreciated

[Skipness One Echo]

These "terminals" are moving faster than the aircraft, can I suggest a location at Gatwick
Sayeth the NIMBY......You, like I, chose to live there. It’s not like someone unexpectedly built an airport in our lifetimes.
I assume T2 build out and T2B are still planned? The Cathedral hangar is expected to come down in the next few years.

[DaveReidUK]

The Cathedral hangar is expected to come down in the next few years.

Presumably along with Bays 1-5, meaning that the last recognisable traces of the original 1950s BEA base will disappear.

[Skipness One Echo]

Indeed, it's noticeable just how much short haul work BA has done in Madrid now as well as A380 work in Singapore or Manila.

[Trinity 09L]

Skip quotes
Sayeth the NIMBY......You, like I, chose to live there.

I had no choice but to live within a certain distance of employment, something not applicable these days.
Then it was before T4 (no further expansion) then T5 (no further expansion).
How will a A380 or 777ER travel to the start of the R3 from T4 or will it just be
"sorry, need to use R3 and another runway in mixed mode" with no noise respite
:suspect:

[DaveReidUK]

Fresh from its recent failure to persuade the world that airlines fly up to twice as quiet and clean as they actually are, Heathrow's latest environmental initiative appears to involve claiming that aircraft aren't really there at all.

Here's a recent weekday morning snapshot with a typical 9 inbounds over Greater London (6am to 7am is the busiest part of the day for arrivals, when both runways are normally used to accommodate landing traffic).

First, FlightRadar24's view:

http://www.avgen.com/FR24.jpg

And Heathrow's version of events from its WebTrak system:

http://www.avgen.com/WT.jpg

[Heathrow Harry]

Govt re-open R3 consulation -

The Department for Transport (DfT) published a series of new reports on the environmental impact of expanding the west London airport.

It also revealed that London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 if there is no expansion.

The consultation initially closed in May, but will now be reopened until December. The DfT insisted it is "on track" to publish final proposals for expansion in the first half of 2018, ahead of a vote in Parliament. Among the series of new reports are an updated noise analysis and a new air quality plan.

The government said higher demand for flights also meant the capital's five airports would hit full capacity six years sooner than expected. Transport Secretary Chris Grayling said the case for building a third runway at Heathrow was "as strong as ever". London's airports are expected to hit full capacity by 2034 according to the DfT If the scheme is approved by MPs, Heathrow will submit a planning application and consult with local communities on detailed proposals.

The airport hopes to begin construction of the new runway in early 2021, with it being completed by the end of 2025. Cait Hewitt, deputy director of campaign group the Aviation Environment Federation, claimed the "scale of this re-consultation" shows that the government's case for Heathrow expansion is "unconvincing".

The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway.
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."

Today's "Times" says the documents show Gatwick would bring more financial benefits to passengers and the environemental report backs Gatwick with LHR risks delaying or worsening compliance with limit values"

[Navpi]

If the original figures were correct there is no reason to reopen the consultation.

If they were wrong "Why were they wrong".

Where is Davies who was hansomely paid for producing all the data which would allow the cabinet to offer a decison ?

This smacks of "Yes Minister" bull and bluster and no doubt a softening up exercise before the decison is slammed into reverse by pulling Gatwick out of the hat!

Grayling really is a liability and is only still in place as it is too politically challenging for May to sack him. He is the worst Transport Secretary this country has ever seen and that is saying something in a catalogue festooned with buffoons.

[Skipness One Echo]

Today's "Times" says the documents show Gatwick would bring more financial benefits to passengers and the environemental report backs Gatwick with LHR risks delaying or worsening compliance with limit values"
Talk about conflating two unrelated issues. It's good to see LGW have actually changed policy here, before they were insisting no runway at LHR, good to see they accept we should have both.

[DaveReidUK]

Grayling really is a liability and is only still in place as it is too politically challenging for May to sack him. He is the worst Transport Secretary this country has ever seen and that is saying something in a catalogue festooned with buffoons.

But at least the guy is consistent - he was also the worst ever Justice Secretary, though Liz Truss made a valiant effort to match him.

[DaveReidUK]

It's good to see LGW have actually changed policy here, before they were insisting no runway at LHR, good to see they accept we should have both.

I don't see any mention of that in the Times article.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Trouble the government have is that they specified the need for one runway in the south east.

They have hitched their "one runway" waggon to LHR which their own figures now show to be the weaker case compared to LGW.If they press on and "decide" to approve LHR (is the weaker case) the government would be exposed to a Judicial Review which, if successful, would mean they have to start the process again from scratch.

[Heathrow Harry]

I suspect they reason there is no way they can gat R3 through quickly because of the environmental issues so they are kicking the can down the road hoping it will go away - same as the idiotic (non-) decision on moving out of Westminster made yesterday

this really is a Govt drifitng without any course or anchor

[Skipness One Echo]

The DfT's estimate about capacity will help to fuel calls for expansion at other airports in the South East, especially at Gatwick which has restated its pledge to build a second runway.
"It is clear that demand for further airport capacity in the South East continues to grow," a spokesperson for Gatwick said. "That's why we have today reiterated our pledge to government to build a second runway at Gatwick regardless of what happens at Heathrow."

I wa quoting Heathrow Harry.
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.

[PAXboy]

There is a reason that LHR has always been in the frame for expansion. Against all alternatives (new places / expansion) the needle always swings back to LHR. There is a reason for that ... :hmm:

[DaveReidUK]

I wa quoting Heathrow Harry.

Ah, right. It appears to have come from yesterday's BBC report, rather than the Times article:

Heathrow third runway public consultation reopened (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41736124)

It's b*ll*cks, of course. :O

While Gatwick may maintain publicly that their R2 plans would go ahead even if Heathrow is also given clearance for R3, nobody seriously believes that, do they?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

I wa quoting Heathrow Harry.
I have no conception of how having lost out every single time in every review how LGW suddenly wins against LHR. The only thing it has that is compelling is the environment case surely. Business isn't even interested in Gatters, never has been.

It's because the airport commission underestimated LGW's growth by a substantial amount. Business travel is only a relatively small percentage of overall travel volumes and does not dictate what is best for the U.K. As a whole.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/25/heathrow-doubts-new-analysis-shows-gatwick-expansion-better/

"And while it was originally forecast that Heathrow would bring greater economic benefits, new official analysis now states that Gatwick would deliver greater financial reward.

The earlier report, put out for public consultation earlier this year, claimed that Heathrow offered total benefits of between £59.2billion and £61.1billion over a 60-year period, outweighing the £52.4 to £53.7billion that could be gained from Gatwick.

But the latest analysis has flipped this on its head, with Britain set to gain up to £75.3billion from Gatwick, compared to just £74.2billion from the third runway option at Heathrow."

[pax britanica]

Germany f--ks up an airport project and delays it by about 8 years . we take 25 years to not build a runway.

It has to go to LHR because its the only hub we have and ever will have.
LGW is too far away and very hard to get to, LHR might be not be ideal but at least there are lots of diverse options for reaching it.

Maybe the government are doing it to divert attention from Brexit where they are even more useless where they have done the most hopeless job imaginable whatever your point of view on the issue

[Skipness One Echo]

nobody seriously believes that, do they?
Yeah, the ROI is poorer when compared against a constrained LHR but LGW do need another runway and have done for many years now. We're running out of road to kick the can down now.

[PAXboy]

As I have said before: If Brexit goes ahead, the holiday traffic will diminsh from LGW and Heathrow - whilst never getting back to a sensible level of ops - will find less pressure. I sit to be corrected!

[DaveReidUK]

As I have said before: If Brexit goes ahead, the holiday traffic will diminsh from LGW and Heathrow - whilst never getting back to a sensible level of ops - will find less pressure. I sit to be corrected!

Yes, but it's an ill wind ...

Brexit could mean Yorkshire sees huge increase in number of flights to Heathrow (http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/brexit-could-mean-yorkshire-sees-huge-increase-in-number-of-flights-to-heathrow-1-8554179)

:O

[canberra97]

That's a huge overstatement by any means, if anything one extra flight a day but a 'huge increase' is ridiculous, the same could be said said about most of the domestic destinations currently served from LHR with some of these including EDI recently having cutbacks to their schedules.

[Navpi]

LEEDS !!!!!

Newquay Humberside and Liverpool are looking for flights before Leeds.

[canberra97]

LEEDS !!!!!

Newquay Humberside and Liverpool are looking for flights before Leeds.

Before Leeds!

British Airways currently fly from Heathrow to Leeds/Bradford upto three times daily.

[DaveReidUK]

Newquay Humberside and Liverpool are looking for flights before Leeds.

Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.

The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Perhaps the current FlyBe operation would make an interesting case study to inform the government about the so-called regional connectivity argument.

[Navpi]

Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.

The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.

This is absolutely true and something our MPs seem oblivious to. Ultimatley the airlines decide and given Virgin failed spectacularlying it will be down to BA. There is no point having connectivity to a HUB if you don't actually have the ability to connect to the airlines serving it. The Virgin case was weak due competition, lack of frequency and a few number of spokes.

With reference to Flybe are they making any money?

I would have thought we would have had increased frequency by now and lots of PR about how successful the flights to Scotland are but the silence is deafening!

[Heathrow Harry]

"LGW is too far away and very hard to get to,"

It has a Motorway and rail connection - in fact a better rail connection than LHR as you can travel right across London to get there NOW - not in a couple of years with crossrail

Plus places like Guidlford & Reading are also connected directly to LGW but not LHR

[Trinity 09L]

Yorkshire Post quote
"Plans to construct a third runway were approved in October last year.":=

So provide slots to regional airports, = oh not able to make a profit, lets see we can sell the slot ££££ or $$$$$ :ouch:

[Skipness One Echo]

Promises that if Heathrow is expanded, more regional destinations will be served are meaningless - neither the airport nor the Government can tell airlines where they should or shouldn't operate. If they can make more profit flying to Lima than Liverpool, that's what they'll do.

The Airports Commission acknowledged this, suggesting that even with expansion the number of UK routes from LHR will remain static or even decline in future.

Is it illegal post Brexit to ring fence a % of slots for domestic routes?
i.e. JER, GCI, IOM, LPL, LBA and maybe even MME?
For the benefit of the third runway, HAL would likely not see that as a dealbreaker.
Not beyond the wit of man to work this out surely?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Is it illegal post Brexit to ring fence a % of slots for domestic routes?
i.e. JER, GCI, IOM, LPL, LBA and maybe even MME?
For the benefit of the third runway, HAL would likely not see that as a dealbreaker.
Not beyond the wit of man to work this out surely?

LHR's case for regional connectivity relies on an airline operating the route. If you ringfence the slot but they are either not used or require a subsidy (like FlyBe now) to be used then it is a net cost rather than a benefit.

The only argument LHR is winning is the connectivity one. The economic, environmental, and regional connectivity arguments have been lost.

[Heathrow Harry]

You could probably do it but LHR would scream and ask for compensation as they won't make as much money from cheapo Brits transitting from the wilds as well-heeled foreigners

[Skipness One Echo]

The only argument LHR is winning is the connectivity one. The economic, environmental, and regional connectivity arguments have been lost.
You say that, but time and time again it comes back to Heathrow.
Let's list the airlines who are pressing for a 2nd runway at Gatwick. : ?

This is politics now pure and simple. As a business analyst I am well used to the misuse of selective stats, I see it every day at work.

The cost benefit analysis favouring Gatwick has been rigged by inflating massively the TFL and local costs of supporting LHR infrastructure, most of which would need to be done anyway. Garbage in, garbage out. As for the environmental and noise nuisance, the future is 787s and A350s, which as a local are a fraction of the noise nuisance of the beloved "Queen of the Skies" -436 series.....

LHR is hugely problematic but if they don't press ahead they won't simply say, "Well it's LGW after all." We'll be back at square one only in a worse place. The sheer volume of jobs coupled with post Brexit need to show we are a trading nation will force the government to push ahead, even at the risk of Corbyn voting down the biggest jobs boost for his unions in generation.

You could probably do it but LHR would scream and ask for compensation as they won't make as much money from cheapo Brits transitting from the wilds as well-heeled foreigners
As I tried to explain, a small % of protected new slots is a small price to pay for a third runway and all that comes with it. It is perfectly manageable if done sensibly.

require a subsidy (like FlyBe now) to be used then it is a net cost rather than a benefit.
Flybe are subsidised on LHR-EDI/ABZ????

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

Why would the stats be "rigged" in favour of LGW by a government that has hitched its waggon to LHR? If anything, you would expect them to bias towards LHR.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

If LHR are willing to pay for it all, go ahead. What they are asking for is a massive government subsidy for surface access, and a commitment to underwrite the scheme.

In part this has been achieved by artificially closing down competition (i.e. preventing LGW runway 2) so that LHR can support its own finance by continuing to charge monopolistic prices to its airline customers who have no realistic alternative.

[Skipness One Echo]

Great point, nailed it. In truth, Gatwick is not the realistic alternative to LHR. It could and should have been once upon a time but we are where we are now. Some fair points about the subsidy but the reality is that it's an oddity for the likes of LHR and LGW to be seen purely as private businesses. The privatised rail and energy firms by necessity get a host of public subsidy, mainly because there's a good arguement they should be publically owned. Both LHR and LGW are major parts of UK PLC infrastructure and will require public subsidy on some level on some points. The genuine argument for both airports is "How much?" TFL (a state body) have vastly inflated LHR costs in their world with the aim of getting a whole load of new money. Of course this is all politics.....

[Heathrow Harry]

"This is politics now pure and simple."

it's envrionmental, planning and judicial ...... the courts will keep this in play for a generation

and the only bigger lobby than BA in Parlaiment is the lawyers............

[Skipness One Echo]

BA don’t want a third runway Harry. Their market dominance would be diluted.
And the changes to planning law Osborne brought in make things much easier to avoid too much courtroom theatre. So, tricky but not as impossible as some would love to believe.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

The argument still has to stack up. As things stand, it clearly does not. Unless something changes, runway 3 is a dead duck.

[PAXboy]

With regards to regional links and thus the whole purpose of hub: forget it. As I have said before, the 'do nothing' policy of the UK govts across the last 30 years have ensured that all the regions have been snapped up by KLM/AF, Lufthansa + other Euro carriers (inc FR) and, now, all the ME carriers are taking pax from the regions to THEIR hubs.

Whilst the Conservatives love to shout about letting the market work - here they have signally failed by preventing the market and, now, the market has gone elsewhere. LHR is doomed to remain the smallest and most insignificant of European hubs. Game Over (Brexit or not)

[Navpi]

Is this true?

Heathrow typical passenger load is 78.5%. So almost 1/4 of empty seats. Suddenly 98.5% isn't all as it seems... https://t.co/WUgoJwt8tx https://t.co/UfCDZCZHXe

Extracted from The Times.

Definitely a Yes Minister
About turn in play.

[Navpi]

As an aside I wonder if Lillian Greenwood will resign.

Even though she should be impartial she nailed her colours firmly to the mast by suggesting we

"get on and build Heathrow", hmmmmm
Somewhat premature as it was the first day of her appointment. Not much objectivity there then.

Even I thought the Head of the Parliamentary Transport Committee was supposed to be impartial, I was staggered that she made such a gung ho remark given her position.

Based on the latest data if there is not a reversal of that position to a more neutral view then she surely has to resign ?

It is one thing for MPs to make unqualified soundbite remarks but quite another for somebody of her authority and her position ?


The Local Government Technical Advisers Group vice chair John Elliott – who has given evidence to the Transport Select Committee in the past – welcomed Lilian Greenwood’s appointment. He said:

“We are hoping a little bit more attention is paid to challenge evidence and policy.”

We would all welcome that in what is becoming a fog in terms of who and what to believe.

The omni shambles doesn't end with the Transport Committee either.

The Transport Secretary says one thing whilst his department takes the contrary view and briefs against him. Incredible!

[inOban]

With regards to regional links and thus the whole purpose of hub: forget it. As I have said before, the 'do nothing' policy of the UK govts across the last 30 years have ensured that all the regions have been snapped up by KLM/AF, Lufthansa + other Euro carriers (inc FR) and, now, all the ME carriers are taking pax from the regions to THEIR hubs.

Whilst the Conservatives love to shout about letting the market work - here they have signally failed by preventing the market and, now, the market has gone elsewhere. LHR is doomed to remain the smallest and most insignificant of European hubs. Game Over (Brexit or not)
Have you data to establish that LHR is the smallest and most insignificant European hub? Last time I saw any report on this, it was still #1.

[ATNotts]

Possibly for UK regional airports feeding in, since much of the long haul business does now indeed find it's way on to one of the middle eastern carriers, or via FRA, AMS or CDG. It would be interesting to learn how much business from secondary airports in Europe and the middle east uses LHR to hub on to other (BA) services, or in the other direction with passengers from secondary north American airports using BA to hub into Europe.

[inOban]

I don't think it is #1 for regional PAX in the UK. I think it serves more worldwide destinations and has more interchange PAX.

[Mr Mac]

I would have to agree with In Oban. The ammount of long haul taffic from the reigons of the UK using LHR has dropped over the last say 15 years, and continues to drain away. It is not just that LHR is not the best place to transit for some, but it is also served by BA which is no longer the go to carrier for every Brit going long haul, and especially if going East. The ME3 have put paid to that, and LH/AF/KLM are doing the same on other routes if you are not SE UK based.

[Skipness One Echo]

It would be interesting to learn how much business from secondary airports in Europe and the middle east uses LHR to hub on to other (BA) services, or in the other direction with passengers from secondary north American airports using BA to hub into Europe.
It's still an incredibly strong proposition to market going West.

Even United who have a STAR hub at FRA have more flights out of LHR due to the much larger O&D market which also allows a swathe of connections onto LH FRA flights, I kid you not.
BA/AA is also an incredibly strong offering. Fed from both ends, they offer 23 US airports totaling 61 flights per day going into the USA.

In total it's :
Oneworld
AA 20
BA 41 US + 5 CA

STAR
AC 10
UA 17

Skyteam
DL 12
VS 17

So around 122 westbound scheduled daily transatlantic flights. Still #1 in that market by quite some way.

[Navpi]

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/letters/es-views-heathrow-expansion-plan-is-reckless-and-expensive-a3670101.html?amp

AND now The Evening Standard is briefing against Heathrow.

[DaveReidUK]

I don't think it is #1 for regional PAX in the UK. I think it serves more worldwide destinations and has more interchange PAX.Quite so. It's not rocket science - Heathrow handles more transfer pax than any other European airport, by a long chalk.

[T250]

The repeated argument of the 'hub' and its connectivity to most other UK regions is delusional...

You would be surprised the numbers of UK pax heading to AMS, FRA and CDG rather than trek to LHR. Personally speaking, I am one of them. I'd much rather use AMS in particular than mess around in the hell hole of LHR!

And in relation to Gatwick, it is repeatedly stated Gatwick is 'harder' to get to. Same can be said of LHR for anyone south of central London, east Surrey, Sussex, Kent and some of Hampshire. These are exactly the pax who also simply turn up at Gatters and board a quick short hop to the Continent to then catch their long haul flight. :cool::hmm:

[inOban]

It always puzzles me that posters who always use AMS or another continental hub are able to assert that LHR is a hellhole, contrary to user polls which rate T5 in particular very highly!

[Homo Simpson]

I would say that people prefer other airports because they are better than Heathrow.

The idea that Heathrow is it for the UK and we must use it is clearly not being listened to by millions of passengers around the UK who no longer need/wish to use it.
The reality is there are much better airports to travel via if a direct option is not available.
Another issue that Heathrow has is the incumbent BA which is quite simply not a particularly good airline anymore.
Especially for First/Business class passengers where BA has been well and truly left behind.
That makes Heathrow less attractive because they are the biggest operator and as such passengers will fly via somewhere else to get better service. Especially East Bound.

[canberra97]

It always puzzles me that posters who always use AMS or another continental hub are able to assert that LHR is a hellhole, contrary to user polls which rate T5 in particular very highly!

I totally agree with you I assume most of those that refer to LHR as a 'hell hole' have not used the airport for a very long time as both Terminal 2 and Terminal 5 are probably two of the best airport terminals in the world and Terminal 4 is a far greater experience than it was ten years ago.

These people that call LHR a 'hell hole' just make the same statement time and time again without having probably used the airport in recent years.

[canberra97]

LGW and LHR are both easy to get to and the fact that this argument continues is ridiculous as it all depends from what direction your coming from or if your traveling by car or public transport, for an example where I live in Southampton in Hampshire LHR is 55 miles and takes approximately one hour and LGW 70 miles away and takes about one hour and 20 mins, STN being a lot further and my third choice is 123 miles away and doable in less than two hours.

Seems everyone moans about traveling distance to LGW and LHR but personally it doesn't concern me as I find the commute very easy.

[Jerry123]

I fly to the US a couple of times a year and I never use Heathrow, i always go via Amsterdam from Cardiff. I don't use Amsterdam because it's a better airport, I use it because it's more convenient and generally more cheaper for me to fly via Amsterdam from Cardiff. I'm sure Heathrow is a nice airport.

[wiggy]

You would be surprised the numbers of UK pax heading to AMS, FRA and CDG rather than trek to LHR.

Not really, but in turn you might be surprised at the number of passengers in Western Europe who head to/from LHR rather than trek to the likes of CDG or other large Western European airports.... I suspect that for the leisure travellers in Europe at least ticket price/getting a good deal trumps other factors...

Canberra97

These people that call LHR a 'hell hole' just make the same statement time and time again without having probably used the airport in recent years.


You may well be right. Due to a combination of circumstances I found myself in T4 recently and didn't recognise the place as the lightless airless box I used to work out of a few years back, as for LHR being a hell hole- as others have said from an infrastructure/facilities POV has certainly improved in recent years and continues to do

[Heathrow Harry]

Have to say that if going long-haul and paying out of my own pocket the cost of APD on a Business Class ticket out of the UK makes a trip via AMS or CDG well worth it

We traveled for 60% of the LHR cost to/from Oz last year - not all APD - less demand for sure but still.............

[Navpi]

And now the BBC

Heathrow expansion: is MP opposition growing? - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41795976/heathrow-expansion-is-mp-opposition-growing)

somebody is giving ministers wiggle room!

[Navpi]

Heathrow critics say revised figures have 'trashed' original case for expansion (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/10/29/heathrow-critics-say-revised-figures-have-trashed-original-case/amp/)

And even The Torygraph leads the charge with a headline that "case for Heathrow is trashed"

[PAXboy]

Have you data to establish that LHR is the smallest and most insignificant European hub? Last time I saw any report on this, it was still #1.
No, it is an assertion that LHR will never expand (in any significant way) from what it is now. The combination of well documented events over the last 30 years, coupled with the decline of the £/Britain is what drives my view. Whilst the low pound might bring some advantages, they will only be short term.

As I said, I also think that any changes made now, however dramatic, will not change a thing.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

APD wll kill it. Also don't forget MAN is a great hub with good transport links and a huge catchment area. Don't like LHR.

[Squawk 6042]

Not mentioned so far is that whenever operational constraints occur at LHR, whether it is due to an incident or the weather, it is, in my experience, the regional shuttle flights that BA will cancel first, leaving regional passengers connecting to long haul high and dry. This happened to me in poor weather one winter travelling from MAN to LHR and on to the mid-east.

So I avoid LHR and much prefer AMS, then FRA or the ME outfits for long haul from MAN. CDG I also find a 'difficult' airport to make a transfer at.

Of course expansion at LHR may mean that the cancelling of BA shuttle flights first goes away.

[Skipness One Echo]

APD wll kill it. Also don't forget MAN is a great hub with good transport links and a huge catchment area. Don't like LHR.
Post 137 has LHR having 122 Westboud daily scheduled flight. The comparable MAN numbers is around 11 legacy scheduled (AA,AC,SQ,UA,VS). Even when you throw in TCX and TOM, it's not even close. MAN is a great airport, but it is not a hub in any meaningful sense of the world, it has no based hub and spoke carrier.
APD has been around for ages and has slowed the rate of growth but it's not reasonable to go as far as you suggest.

[Mr Mac]

In Oban
Last time I was through LHR T5 was 14 months ago while connecting off an inbound flight from South America only to be told that my connecting flight to MAN had been cancelled due to "operational reasons", but not to worry we were going to be bused up the M6. You do not want to hear what I said about this.
That was both my first BA flight in a number of years and the first time I had used LHR since about 2009. Needless to say my experiance that day and the average to poor BA service on the flight has clouded my judjment re LHR and BA, and I have not returned since to either. T5 is ok but nothing that great, and as others have said the resident carrier (BA) is also no longer what it was, in my admitted now very limited experiance of them.

[Mr A Tis]

My biggest gripe at LHR is the difficulty in transferring terminals. Twice I've recently connected BA to BA to find it's T5 to T3. Both occasions the transfers took almost 2 hours gate to gate- which is pants. How can you build a terminal (T5) that isn't even big enough on day 1?
As has already been said, any slightest glitch and the regional connections get chopped.
Give me AMS any day.

[Prophead]

A lot of the arguments above that are supposed to be against expansion at LHR are actually arguments for it.

[Skipness One Echo]

How can you build a terminal (T5) that isn't even big enough on day 1
1.Because of the physical restrictions of the site.
2. BA had to close the LGW hub due to unsustainable losses and so a swathe of long haul, (South America and part Africa) was moved back to LHR
BAA and BA had initially expected the BA operation to be smaller.

The planning process is the reason T5 is on so many floors, they had to build up.

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

A lot of the arguments above that are supposed to be against expansion at LHR are actually arguments for it.

Not if expansion cannot be undertaken economically.

[Prophead]

Well that's what the revised scheme has been all about isn't it?

How much do they need to cut from the plans before it becomes acceptable?

[Dobbo_Dobbo]

The fundamental issue is government spend on surface access and underwriting the private investment (which essentially ties the governments hands over not approving LGW runway 2).

[FFMAN]

''Heathrow, hell-hole''
People who still use this kind of language haven't been there for quite a while and possibly don't get to fly much beyond the two weeks in Benidorm.
T5 and T2 are pretty good and certainly much much nicer and more user-friendly than either T1 or T3 at Manchester.
Changing terminals at LHR though should be avoided at all cost.

The main reasons I don't use LHR as much as I used to are:
1) There's not as much need to - plenty of options from my home airport of MAN
2) The decline of BA as a carrier of choice: Short-haul: probably as good as Easyjet but think they are superior (not a good mix) Long-haul is incredibly average and since they have started charging to choose seats EVEN IN BUSINESS CLASS, I have tended to avoid as a matter of principle.
3) The risk of a connecting shuttle being canceled at the drop of a hat is another powerful reason to avoid BA.

But overall Heathrow is not a 'hell-hole' - people need to update their social references. CDG is a far far worse experience IMO.

[T250]

T5 and T2 are pretty good and certainly much much nicer and more user-friendly than either T1 or T3 at Manchester.

So half the airport terminals are OK, the other half T3 and T4 are not so OK. Overall, an OK airport, not really good enough for our supposed UK 'hub'.

A lot of the arguments above that are supposed to be against expansion at LHR are actually arguments for it.
Same can be said for expansion at LGW, all bias and subjective!

APD has been around for ages and has slowed the rate of growth but it's not reasonable to go as far as you suggest.
You'll be surprised. I have several friends who I am fortunate enough to use their staff travel including several major long haul carriers and one loco. LHR APD on stand by fares is at least DOUBLE that of MAN, EDI, CDG, AMS, GVA and FRA.

[Prophead]

A lot of the arguments above that are supposed to be against expansion at LHR are actually arguments for it.

Same can be said for expansion at LGW, all bias and subjective!

Not really, I am talking about comments such as this

So half the airport terminals are OK, the other half T3 and T4 are not so OK. Overall, an OK airport, not really good enough for our supposed UK 'hub'.

As well as other posts about how bad they think LHR is now or was once upon a time.

We should not develop the airport because it needs developing is not really an argument against it. Likewise, the fact BA cancels domestic flights at the first sign of trouble is not a reason not to build a SH runway and encourage more domestic flights but an argument for it.

Talking about environmental air pollution is also a bit misleading without comparing against the extra pollution created now from aircraft holding and the general reduction likely to come, as a result of cleaner vehicles and aircraft from mid 2030's when this project would likely be completed.

Projected surface access costs too need to be taken in context with the life of the project and against the existing cost of those improvements that would likely happen even if the new runway didn't go ahead.

[inOban]

I believe most of the pollution is caused by cars and trucks, not by a/c.

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow has changed the name of its flagship environmental monitoring programme - previously called "Fly Quiet & Clean", it's now "Fly Quiet & Green".

Sadly, the change doesn't coincide with any attempt to clean up the stats, so again they give the usual distorted view of airlines' performance.

Bizarrely, Air India gets the Number One slot (which, using Heathrow's own rules, should actually belong to Qantas), mainly because AI's poor performance for track-keeping and NOx emissions hasn't been factored into the scoring.

Airlines entitled to feel aggrieved with the latest published results include China Southern, unfairly relegated 14 places from the Number 8 slot that its performance actually merits, and Virgin Atlantic, down 12 positions from its rightful 19th place. One wonders what those carriers have done (or failed to do) that has earned Heathrow's disapproval.

Air Malta, on the other hand, seem to be particularly favoured this time around - despite its performance only meriting a position in the bottom half of the league table, at 27th, it gets a 10-place hike up the rankings to 17th.

And strangest of all, Air France and Air Canada, who should be in tied place based on how they performed in each of the measured criteria, end up 9 places apart in the league table. Pour encourager les autres, presumably. :O

https://www.heathrowflyquietandgreen.com/

[Navpi]

If POINTLESS doesn't cut the mustard one could always switch to Parliament TV for a similar offering.

http://www.cityam.com/276804/mps-grill-department-transport-representatives-plans/amp

[Navpi]

British Airways: 50,000 passengers stranded after de-icing meltdown at Heathrow | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/british-airways-50000-passengers-stranded-de-icing-meltdown-heathrow-delays-diversions-a8102761.html)

[Tech Guy]

Only in the UK does everything fall over at the slightest hint of weather being less than optimal.

[inOban]

Not true. Looking at EDI, it seems that Schipol and Eindhoven are closed, not surprising given the forecast.

[Plane.Silly]

At least they would be a bit more prepared for the weather, it always seems to catch the UK off guard every year without fail.

Looks like schiphol is up and running though, but delays between 1 and 5 hrs

[Navpi]

It did appear to be a specific problem to BA AND T5.

Simon Calder was on TV suggesting all other airlines were operating with only 1 or 2 cancellations.

[wiggy]

Another poster on another thread (about a BA flight returning to Berlin on Sunday) has pointed out that in his case there were problems with T2 and Eurowings.

TBH Simon Calder is sort of stating the obvious - if for whatever reason there is a major problem at LHR then it’s a given that BA will be the most effected and chances are T5 won’t be a pretty sight....In any event I’d be interested to see the stats for Sunday for all operators at the airport.

BTW the last time I operated out of LHR with BA in significant snow a few years back we got away OK, albeit about 2 hours late. The last time I actually ended up cancelling and night stopping due to snow was out of a US eastern seaboard airport......not that that is evidence of anything other than there is a danger of making the assumption (happily fuelled by the media) that it is only ever LHR/UK that cannot cope with “bad” weather.....

[DaveReidUK]

In any event I’d be interested to see the stats for Sunday for all operators at the airport.

10 busiest carriers:

Airline, Arrs/Deps Sun 3 Dec, Arrs/Deps Sun 10 Dec
BA 327/332 163/150
EI 21/20 15/15
AA 19/19 19/17
SK 19/17 15/13
VS 18/18 19/17
LH 17/16 11/10
UA 15/15 15/15
DL 12/12 12/11
EW 12/12 4/4
LX 12/12 5/5

[wiggy]

DR - I knew I could rely on you..

Ok, 'cos it's early It's been short night and I'm a bit fik...that's the achieved? - as in BA got "327 in/332 out" on Sunday 3rd..."163 in/150 out" Sunday 10th...

Many thanks as always...

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, actual movements, I don't have access to the planned programme.

[Trinity 09L]

The HAL airport publicity machine seems very quiet. So whose at fault? :confused:

[PAXboy]

You know the deafult is: If a company is saying nothing - then it's covering up. They know that ANY statement can be thrown back at them and de-icing and other aspects of despatch inevitably involve HAL. Best to say nowt unless forced.

[WHBM]

Thanks Dave Reid, these figures should really be put to the main newspapers to ask Alex Cruz for an explanation. The full house by Virgin is particularly notable as their Heathrow operations are wholly based there as well.

As I understand it, de-icing is the responsibility of the handling agent, which includes provision of the personnel, kit and the fluid. There's no centralised deicing pad at Heathrow.

BA self-handle, presumably most of the others are handled by agents.

[Navpi]

Excellent post by Dave Reid.

Had the news not been dominated by "real weather elsewhere " i suspect the media would have been all over this.

[Skipness One Echo]

In fairness the deicing meltdown was squarely a BA one as it’s self handling. I wonder if the BA T3 operation fared any better?
Look at United and Virgin for example above, T3 and T2 have a lot more contingency now that T5 created more space once BA moved across. #irony

[KelvinD]

So what was going on at LHR this morning? I was taking some happy snaps down there and couldn't help noticing what seemed to be longer than usual gaps between arrivals, as much as 5 minute intervals at times. I looked at my app and saw there were no race course shaped tracks over Ockham, Bovingdon etc. It did look rather odd. Am I right in thinking this was due to some of BA's "get the aircraft back where it belongs" routines, following the inclement weather?

[Trinity 09L]

The HAL publicity is softening up the opposition by reducing costs by £2.5bn. The crayons are out to plan a smaller terminal (not T6 of course). Maybe this will pay for all the roads owned by UK plc that have to be moved at our cost

[Skipness One Echo]

Agree 126.1%.
All major national infrastructure should be self funding, so we can be more like the US of A, where it would be crumbling around us. (not!)
In unrelated news, we'd never have built the Channel Tunnel or a single nuclear power station.
Can we just reflect on how self-funding our railway infrastructure is? By your reasoning we'd need to stop spending there as well.
You don't seriously think anyone in Govt treats HAL like any other commercial business. It's one of our major national infrastructure components that's rightly or wrongly, now in private hands. The perils of selling off the family silver is a bias towards public risk and private reward, but we can't just stop infrastructure spending in the manner you suggest.

Just move house man, this is REALLY going to make your life a misery if it goes ahead and you feel this badly.

[Trinity 09L]

29 minutes to reply.

Just move house man, this is REALLY going to make your life a misery if it goes ahead and you feel this badly

It will make a misery for over 100,000 more as well if it goes ahead.

[Una Due Tfc]

Like buying a house next to a stadium and giving out about crowds....

[Navpi]

To be fair the much vaunted savings are for the benefit of the shareholders and HAL.

COSTS to the taxpayer are still eyewatering.

Could someone bang some heads together in order to make some savings in this area or does the taxpayer have to meekly accept them ?

Improvements to Stansted to rail would cost a pittence of what Heathrow road / rail would cost but would still make a dramatic improvement.

It would not be so bad if there were some figures on the taxpayer ROI in the form of dividends?

[anothertyke]

Maybe if the taxpayer puts up a quarter of the capital they should own/ have the right to auction a quarter of the new slots.

[Fairdealfrank]

Think you may be missing the point: with another rwy, there will be plenty of slots available, consequently slots will have no monetary value, and there will be no secondary slot market.



Improvements to Stansted to rail would cost a pittence of what Heathrow road / rail would cost but would still make a dramatic improvement.How would the two compare in terms of a cost-benefit analysis?

[LBIA]

So much for Heathrow's owners wanting less UK domestic routes when it's offering discount deals like this in 2018.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/01/02/heathrow-slashes-passenger-charges-domestic-flights-bid-expansion/

[DaveReidUK]

I don't recall HAL ever being on record as saying they want fewer domestic routes. When was that ?

[AirportPlanner1]

This doesn't suggest more flights, to me it seems to be trying to make existing routes more attractive. The airport needs people though the door and spending time in the terminal while they wait for connections, if a BA jet is heading off to Leeds or Inverness on a slot-sitting mission it's much better for it to be 80% full than flying fresh air around.

In LBIA's defence the airport may not have actually said they don't want any domestic, but their pricing makes it prohibititive because it's biased towards larger aircraft. With the best will in the world you aren't going to get 777s heading to Newquay or Humberside.

[Trinity 09L]

On the Stansted thread they are welcoming a B777 of EK later this year, which will reduce the number of miles passengers travel from Essex, the northern quarter of London, and Herts etc to LHR by road to use the normal services. Is this the future? happy new year everyone.:O

[Plane.Silly]

While LHR is at bursting point, airlines only grow with bigger planes or new routes, the addition of STN is more of a growth plan, as it still serves to London Area with more capacity.

It probably will be the future, until the 3rd runway is built, so definately going long term

[anothertyke]

Think you may be missing the point: with another rwy, there will be plenty of slots available, consequently slots will have no monetary value, and there will be no secondary slot market.




Possibly that might be true on day 1 but this is an investment for a generation or two.


I'm not sure we yet understand how the regulator intends to release the slots. Maybe not all at once in a huge splurge? Has anything been said about that?


I presume there will be a considerable diversion from the waiting room to take account of.


I could believe that arrival slots in the early morning weekdays will be close to capacity very early on while slots on a Saturday afternoon in November will be in plentiful supply for years.


Correct me if I'm wrong--- if we leave the EU, we are free to distribute the slots via whatever auction or allocation process we choose, subject only to common law?

[Heathrow Harry]

A question is who actually owns the slots.......... a Govt in need of revenue might well take them all over and auction them off to the highest bidder...............

[WHBM]

On the Stansted thread they are welcoming a B777 of EK later this year, which will reduce the number of miles passengers travel from Essex, the northern quarter of London, and Herts etc to LHR by road to use the normal services. Is this the future? happy new year everyone.
It remains to be seen, of course. There have been multiple attempts by long haul carriers at Heathrow to have a shot at parallel services from Stansted. American Airlines for example have had more than one attempt. All have previously failed, of course.

To take the Emirates example, I periodically travel for business to Dubai. And I live more conveniently close by road to Stansted than to Heathrow. And the westbound Emirates flight, daytime, is timed right. But the return is overnight, which I don't want. I want a lunchtime departure from Heathrow, on Saturday, for a midnight arrival at Dubai. So I'll still use Heathrow.

[AirportPlanner1]

Actually this is only the fourth time, and in reality would seem to be the first genuine and sustainable attempt. The previous cases were:

1. American to Chicago. Far too early in STN's development, and politically motivated.

2. American to JFK. Clearly a spoiler for the premium carriers. Binned almost overnight after the collapse of Eos.

3. PIA to Karachi. Ceased after PIA's aircraft were banned from EU airspace.

Continental operated to Newark of course, but they were not at Heathrow at that time. This service did well, but was canned in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 and the collapse in trans-Atlantic air travel.

I am in no doubt EK will do well, and I believe a second daily service will come forward within a couple of years.

[Skipness One Echo]

Why was STN-ORD politically motivated? Btw given STN was intended for exactly that sort of operation, London’s third airport and all, two brand new satellites and people mover with airbridges and wide body parking all attached to a world class award winning fit for purpose terminal, I am puzzled why you say it was too early. The AA operation at LHR was smaller then too as much remained at LGW, whereas AA sought to beat BA in it’s own backyard by not just using LHR.

As an airport planner (!), can you add some detail? From what I heard it was simply that the yields were (very) poor. Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!

[southside bobby]

AirportPlanner1..
As above...a very clear & correct explanation of previous erstwhile attempts at STN...

[southside bobby]

There remains much obfuscation concerning the AA services particularly the JFK & all posters will have their own beliefs & perhaps agenda.

There is no doubt the AA JFK was a killer service aimed at MAX & particularly EOS.

Before my time here but as to the claim the AA JFK was going double daily with other destinations planned is what we heard on the ground but which transpired ultimately to be part of the spoiling tactics & psychological warfare in place at the time.

[AirportPlanner1]

Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!

The airline said it would be going double daily. I don't have any quotes to hand but I can tell you it wasn't just the dream of the local spotters.

Regarding Chicago, with the massive investment in STN a lot was done behind the scenes to get a star headliner in. Remember, at that time STN barely had any kind of meaningful European network. Just key cities in F100s and 146s plus a few small props to the likes of Maastricht. Then along comes AA with their 767. It would be quite similar to Southampton gaining such a service today.

[Skipness One Echo]

Interesting points, although I don’t really agree with the SOU analogy as STN was always plugged into the London market. Remember Stansted was the home for AirUK who were more than a bit player, indeed they were a LHR operator to GCI. They had a host of UK and European connections and sold heavily on the Stansted experience to avoid a then truly awful Heathrow. (Mainly because BAA cut back on investment at LHR because the future was all about STN. Anyhoo......)
It was such a shame that a great concept as STN ended up as a loco airfield, although Ryanair, easyJet and Jet2 are way more affordable than the AirUK of the 90s.

Back to LHR, noticed Pier 3 has now joined Pier 4 and been demolished. Remote stands 210/209 in use now, T2 Phase 2 will evidently look a lot like T5A!

[canberra97]

Why was STN-ORD politically motivated? Btw given STN was intended for exactly that sort of operation, London’s third airport and all, two brand new satellites and people mover with airbridges and wide body parking all attached to a world class award winning fit for purpose terminal, I am puzzled why you say it was too early. The AA operation at LHR was smaller then too as much remained at LGW, whereas AA sought to beat BA in it’s own backyard by not just using LHR.

As an airport planner (!), can you add some detail? From what I heard it was simply that the yields were (very) poor. Btw if you read the STN thread when AA tried JFK there are a few people claiming yields werw good AND it was going double daily!

A Report from The Independent on Wednesday 31 March 1993 23:02 BST

STANSTED, London's third airport, was dealt a severe blow last night after American Airlines announced that it will be pulling out of the under-used airport at the end of next month.
American, the only long-haul carrier flying there, said it had decided to abandon its daily Stansted to Chicago service after losing about dollars 10m since launching the route last June.

However, the scrapping of the service is also a reflection of the fierce battle being fought between British and US carriers for survival on the transatlantic market.

BAA, the owner of Stansted, badly needs to attract more airlines and more services to the airport, having invested pounds 400m in a new terminal and rail link.

Last year the airport lost nearly pounds 29m. Although the number of passengers handled rose by a third to 2.34 million, this is less than half its 5 million capacity. Stansted has the potential to take 8 million passengers with a further satellite.

A spokeswoman for BAA said: 'Obviously, we are very sad that American has pulled out, but you have got to put it in context. Stansted is the fastest-growing airport in Europe and American accounted for only 2 per cent of passenger traffic.'

Neverthless, the airport now lacks a prestige international airline to attract other carriers. There are 12 scheduled airlines at Stansted, operating to 41 destinations compared with six carriers flying to 11 destinations two years ago.

Hans Mirka, American's senior vice-president international, said that load factors on the Stansted-Chicago route were consistently low and that the flight did not attract enough premium business travellers.

He also attacked the failure of the British government to liberalise the rules preventing American from increasing the number of US destinations served from Stansted.

This might have tempted American to continue its Chicago service. But with its aircraft less than half full compared with load factors of more than 80 per cent on its flights from Gatwick, Heathrow and Manchester, the Stansted route could not be made viable. American still operates twice- daily to Chicago from Heathrow in competition with British Airways.

[canberra97]

I always enjoy your updates regarding the demolish work at Terminal 1 keep them coming Skip.

[southside bobby]

Thanks for the research & interesting article above...

One stat not mentioned 60,000 flew on the service...

Days after AA announced the forthcoming closure TWA confirmed it would start a STN ORD service via JFK commencing on 11.6.93,this plan became bound up in InterGovernmental politics between the USA & the UK & used also as a bargaining chip for the UK to gain rights for VIR to fly LHR-BOS.

Despite strong lobbying for the service from many quarters in the UK TWA`s plan was finally rejected by The British Secretary of State for Transport.

[canberra97]

I remember the application made to the DOT by TWA regarding operating STN to ORD and I remember that Tower Air put in a similar application to fly from STN to JFK but as you say they got bound up in InterGovernmental politics.

[southside bobby]

Of course Tower Air they had slipped my mind...

[Fairdealfrank]

A question is who actually owns the slots.......... a Govt in need of revenue might well take them all over and auction them off to the highest bidder...............

There won't be any bidding if/when supply is greater than demand. There would be no need.

[Navpi]

https://news.sky.com/story/stricken-hs2-contractor-carillion-in-urgent-fight-for-survival-11197537


This could be quite damaging.Lots of contracts at Heathrow are handled by Carillion.

Ps don't mention HS2:)

[DaveReidUK]

"At Heathrow, we deliver facilities management services across Terminals 1, 2, 3 and 5. It’s a flexible and efficient delivery model that is better for business continuity."

We are one of the largest construction and support services companies in the UK aviation sector. (https://www.carillionplc.com/solutions/sectors/aviation/)

[WHBM]

Been coming for a long time.

http://www.cityam.com/277892/carillion-falls-grace-happened-behind-scenes-during-2017

[mufc4evr]

Hi Guys

just wondering if there is any rumours of any new airlines aiming to serve LHR?

cheers

[canberra97]

You never know with Heathrow as it's usually the current airlines expanding their operations with purchased or leased slots from other airlines or those that are operating from Gatwick but the latest airline to start operating from Heathrow is Beijing Capital Airlines from Qingdao.

[Navpi]

http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/15814820.leeds-bradford-airport-disappointed-as-british-airways-announces-flight-cuts-to-and-from-heathrow/

[Heathrow Harry]

Lack of demand.

[Skipness One Echo]

No night stopper and least useful schedule ever means no attempt at generating demand alas. This one remains a slot sitter until it's dropped or a night stop is trialled. This was announced a few weeks ago sadly.

[Jerry123]

Yet i believe the passenger numbers were growing on it. In the end the winners will be KLM and possibly Aer Lingus.

[Plane.Silly]

Likely case will be that the slots it frees up can go on more lucrative route. Maybe London Airlines have twigged that Yorkshire folk don't do posh and expensive in general

[VentureGo]

Transport Committee

Monday 15 January 2018 Meeting starts at 4.45pm

Watch on Parliament TV Live (link below) then available afterwards via link:

Parliamentlive.tv - Transport Committee (http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3b5e3fb9-c59e-464d-898c-2c8476448fa2)


Subject: Airports National Policy Statement
Witnesses: Councillor Paul Hodgins, Leader of Richmond Upon Thames Council, Brendon Walsh, Chairman, and Joseph Carter, Chairman of the Transport sub-group, Heathrow Strategic Planning Group, Val Shawcross CBE, Deputy Mayor of London for Transport, and Alex Williams, Director of City Planning, Transport for London
Witnesses: Parmjit Dhanda, Executive Director, Back Heathrow, John Stewart, Chair, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise, and Stephen Clark, No 3rd Runway Coalition

[WHBM]

How on earth does self-appointed whinger John Stewart even manage to get invited to address Parliament ?

[Heathrow Harry]

Story in the Times that they're cutting 300 m off the length of proposed runway 3

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, there are three runway options that are part of the consultation launched today. One is the originally-planned 3500m NW runway and the two others have 300m removed from either the eastern or western end (the consultation also makes reference to chopping a bit off both ends, though that's not quantified).

Whatever the length of the runway, it would have a hump in the middle - the thresholds would be at ground level, rising by between 3m and 5m where it passes over the M25.

Lots of other interesting stuff in the (29!) consultation documents, not least the different options proposed for realigning many of the local roads.

https://www.heathrowconsultation.com

[Navpi]

The backers of the “Heathrow Hub” rival Heathrow expansion scheme are considering legal action against the Government in the wake of the airport’s move to propose potential revisions to its plans. Heathrow Hub, fronted by former Concorde pilot Jock Lowe, has criticised the Government for allowing Heathrow to now consult on new ideas for its 3rd runway because this could change the eventual scheme from what was originally submitted and considered by the Airports Commission. Heathrow’s consultation (started 17th Jan, ends 28th March) is considering 3 different runway options, two of them for a 3,200 metres and one at 3,500 metres, slightly differently sited. This is in spite of the Government’s own documents on the expansion stipulating the need for a runway of “at least 3,500 metres”. Heathrow has to try to keep costs down, as its airlines are bitterly opposed to the cost of its proposals. The consultation also outlined potential plans for how to deal with the runway crossing the M25 motorway. Heathrow Hub said if it did launch legal proceedings, it would aim to get the money it spent submitting its proposals for expansion to the Government refunded. Heathrow airport said it thought that “providing some flexibility on the specification of the precise runway length would not undermine the NPS and its objectives”.

[DaveReidUK]

Heathrow’s consultation is considering 3 different runway options, two of them for a 3,200 metres and one at 3,500 metres, slightly differently sited.

All three runway options are on the same line.

The two shorter options are within the footprint of the original 3,500m runway plan - it's only the thresholds that are shifted (obviously) to give the different lengths.

[OzzyOzBorn]

COBALT to launch daily LHR-LCA effective 27 March. Allocated T3 15:45/17:20.

[WHBM]

Heathrow has to try to keep costs down, as its airlines are bitterly opposed to the cost of its proposals.
I'll bet they are, as a 50% increase in capacity would principally serve to draw in rivals - both EasyJet (especially) and Ryanair have said they would consider slots if newly available. This would be all well and good, provided that Heathrow, not the current airlines, had paid for it, but if the current operators are to be surcharged for years to benefit their rivals, that is unreasonable.


Given that Heathrow is regulated by the government, you can't be certain what they would cook up after plundering the current operators' pockets - some formula that says the current carriers only get 25% of the additional slots.

[Navpi]

I'm sure I read somewhere that the incumbent airlines would sue if they were surcharged versus new entrants!

IAG will bide their time and not sit back and gently waive EZY and RYR in.

[PAXboy]

Such are the joys of deregulation. The big boys can stand in the way of the new boys. Just like they did with Laker Skytrain and Virgin Atlantic. :ugh:

[DaveReidUK]

Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.

[Navpi]

It would be interesting. The hike in landing fees will in some cases be double the start point of most of the EZY and RYR fares. Not sure this will put them off.
With a lower overall cost structure in other areas eg Asset costs, salaries etc and a much younger fleet i still think they they would wipe out some areas of IAG.
Probaby BA but maybe not EI.

The problem is that this might then impact the hub concept as BA tend to discount UK domestic fares but ramp up the long haul element.

There could be quite a ripple.in UK aviation.

Without a monopoly at Heathrow BA could find themselves in trouble but that then undermines the framework and hub concept that Rw3 Is supposed to solve as BA are the main provider.

[nigel osborne]

Story in the Times that they're cutting 300 m off the length of proposed runway 3

Wish they would make up their mind and get on with it.

Separately sure I read somewhere that Cathay Pacific are placing A350s on two of their Heathrow 77W rotations this year.

Anyone able to firm this up and which two ?

Thanks.

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.

EZY have already sad publicly that they'd operate from EGLL post-third runway

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, I know that's what they said, after all it didn't cost them anything to say it.

But when push comes to shove, I still don't think they're serious.

[Plane.Silly]

If EZY did start operations from LHR, i'd imagine there would be a lot of route cannibalisation with other LON airports. I could see business orientated routes leaving LGW/STN and moving to LHR, then leaving room in other airports for new destinations or increased frequency on the more popular leisure orientated route.

The airports fees would be the scary part, but there must be a premium they could exploit by going the LHR. If BA can get A320's in/out, surely EZY can

[Skipness One Echo]

If you ever wondered why “Your London Airport, Gatwick” ran such a visceral anti LHR in the recent review, losing a part of their biggest customer was a huge consideration.

[Porky Speedpig]

I tend to agree with Dave - without serious positive changes in airspace management and resultant declines in airborne holding, start delays etc, EZY or any other LOCO would face significant challenges to their high utilisation models as well as on time performance. It would be entertaining to listen in to RYR on Demand versus Capacity meetings though!

[DaveReidUK]

It's never been hard, at any stage of the debate, to work out why Gatwick want LGW to expand. :O

[PAXboy]

When sitting in a stack for LHR, I always dream of a regulation that limits the stacks for reduced fuel (and subsequent pollution) as much as for time but, both for money. A fella can dream ... :{

[DaveReidUK]

Do you have a preference for where you'd like to divert to? :O

Joking aside, a stack is just another word for a queue. Queing Theory 101 says that in order to sweat the maximum utilisation out of an asset with finite capacity, by far the easiest (though not the only) way is to get the customers to form an orderly queue.

HAL used to publish a factsheet on stacking, but that was withdrawn some time ago, presumably because it was considered a controversial subject:

[Heathrow Harry]

Serious hatchet job in the Times financial pages today on R3 by Alistair Osborne (who I think is a twerp but is widely held to be really influential)

"After half a century Heathrow doesn't know where to put it's third runway... so many crucial details are still up in the air it's hard to see what the consultation is actually about... having noticed the M25 is one of the busiest roads in the UK Heathroiw says it will ensure our proposals do not result in disruption ... this includes moving the carriageway 150m west, lowering it by 7m into a tunnel and raising the runway height by 5 m - so nothing disruptive about that

Cost? LHR have reduced the costs to £ 14 Bn - but TfL estimate another £18 Bn in additional transport costs - LHR are offering a £1 Bn towards it.

Two other crucial issues - illegal air quality & noise get no more than platitudes.... No-one knows where the flight paths will be (after 50 years) so they cant measure the detailed impact on local communities "

The consultation is a sham as there will have to be another consultation when these details are known.”

[Trinity 09L]

H Harry.
It is not a consultation but a road show by HAL. The events are in obscure places where less folks will turn up. Please do not forget that the A4 has several options including crossing a lake and the M25, or a tunnel.
No plans for how the runways will operate, that is. A separate roadshow in the future :ugh:

[PAXboy]

DaveReidUK
Queing Theory 101 says ...Yup! I used to work in telecommunications so I know all about demand for limited resources and the queue and how many will then go away and how many try again. I did use the word 'dream' twice!

Providing sufficient ground capacity (runways) so that stacking can be limited was the answer but no Brit govt was going to / will ever give it.

I have also sat in the departure queues at EWR and JFK. I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes.

[Heathrow Harry]

Hmm - it was billed as a Consultation in our local paper

and here

https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/local-community/consultations/ (https://www.heathrowexpansion.com/the-expansion-plan/planning-process/)

Consultation 1 launched - 17 January 2018

Heathrow has a launched its first planning consultation. To find out more, including how to respond, please visit the dedicated consultation website at www.heathrowconsultation.com

[Heathrow Harry]

"I think the longest taxi out at JFK from push to turning onto the active was 55 minutes"

Same here - a Sunday afternoon as well - decent weather, no backup from earlier incidents... just a longgggggggggggg taxi

[Trinity 09L]

Consultation with whom?
The opposition say no to moving roads,extra noise over wider area,lack of housing for staff, etc etc.
Pro group sponsored by HAL say yes all good go ahead.
At this time HAL are sitting down with the Govt pre planning process. Q Can we see those plans? Err no. They are building a runway with no plan how it can be used.
They cannot decide what size runway they want now, so do we press a button to select.

[DaveReidUK]

Yes, it's a consultation in the sense that there are questions that you are asked to respond to.

And, like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions. :O

[Navpi]

There was a super article in The Times yesterday by Andrew Osborne, economic editor , regarding Heathrow suggesting it's a "crock" calling out the three schemes and how to move the busiest motorway in Europe without bringing the S EAST to complete gridlock.

He also mentioned the somewhat thorny issue of the £12bn (min figure) or £18bn (max figure) for the work involved and who who pays.

[Heathrow Harry]

If you paged up to Saturday a/m.............

https://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/599818-heathrow-2-a-12.html#post10033017

[Heathrow Harry]

"like most consultations, it doesn't say anywhere that the answers of respondents, whether or not they form a consensus, will carry any weight or influence any decisions"

they're only done to avoid a Judicial Review TBH

[anothertyke]

Were Heathrow to expand, I'd be very surprised if either EZY or RYR had any real interest in operating from there.


Could you expand on your thinking on that? EZY have been prepared to have a go modestly at AMS, CDG etc. LHR is obviously underserved to the European sun destinations. I'd have thought it is credible that they could enter with a mixed network of cities and sun. I suppose it depends on the size of their cost advantage vis a vis BA and how deep their pockets are just in case there is a fight.


RYR--- totally agree. They will be interested in whatever gets freed up elsewhere.

[DaveReidUK]

Exactly. There is no way EZY would want to take on BA/IAG head-to-head.