London airports weather chaos - news

[gatbusdriver]

Please take the time to read a very sensible response on another thread (exactly the same topic) from a chap from Montreal (just so you don't get upset his thread was moved as well)

As one who works where it snows 4 months out of 12, and where 25cm in a day isn't uncommon at all, I would humbly suggest that you don't realize all the implications of being ready to face such a weather event.

Where I worked, during a "snow event", additional staff was called in to coordinate along clear guidelines develloped over years of refining.... and they weren't perfect! Just deciding on what priority each bit of pavement got wasn't easy. It's great to plow and sweep the runways but when you can't use the taxiways you're in trouble. So you need crews for both. Sweeping also isn't enough as you'll quickly cover the edge lights so you need to think about having snow blowers as part of the convoy.

To top it off, you decide to taxi a bunch out of the deicing bay (you do have one right?) to your active only to learn that it's no longer useable since it's now too slippery. So until the trucks can lay down chemicals and do a couple passes on the runway to increase friction to a better level, their hold over time as gone by under the falling snow and they must return to deice.

Your arrival runway is now suffering the same fate and so holding time coming in increases as well.

What I described was at an airport that's ready for snow!! Imagine if yours isn't!

Continuous heavy snow operation is more than just having a few trucks to plow the runways. The costs of being ready for such an operation would be enormous and you still would see a markable decrease in efficiency. Would you want them to spend all that money and bring the tab to you? (They would anyway!)

Cheers,

Felix

[VAFFPAX]

The responses of some of my less-informed colleagues were amusing, if not a bit naive:

"Why can't they have under-runway heating to keep the runways clear?"

"Why are they having issues clearing the runway?"

Yes, there definitely seems to be a contingency issue here, but as the quoted poster Felix says, you can only do so much. Even airports with more than 3 runways struggle, but airports like LHR and LGW, who run near capacity AND end up a foot deep in the snow are truly shafted.

I do hope that BAA will learn more from this and see how things can be improved for the next "worst snow in 18 years".

S.

[smith]

paddy

Ah it annoys the hell out of me when I fly to places like JFK, BOS, ORD, YYZ, YVR, SVO and a bundle of other places which experience "severe ahem" snowfalls on a regular annual basis far worse then anything being experienced in the UK yet they pretty much manage to keep their airports ticking over with minor delays! London gets a moderate flurry and it shuts down and goes into crises mode!

All these airports regularly have snow so quite rightly have the infastructure to cope, the UK, being surrounded by water does not really have a snow problem in the way that other northern European and American states have, so there is really no need for us to have the methods to cope for a once in a blue moon experience. Its a case of getting the balance right between having all the gear (snow plough's, de icer's etc), regularly maintained, staff trained and current, and the expense that goes with it, ready for a once every 18 years occurrence. Or just make do and improvise with the wrong equipment, I think I know what option the beancounters would prefer.

[Married a Canadian]

so there is really no need for us to have the methods to cope for a once in a blue moon experience

I have mentioned on another thread that is a POOR excuse in the aviation world. Once in a blue moon is still more than NEVER.

Is the UK is really going the way of "it'll never happen so we don't need to worry about it" !???

[gatbusdriver]

So you want BAA to spend millions on suitable equipment that is required once every 18 years, let alone the cost of staff, upkeep and training required for said equipment.........a very sensible well thought out arguement.

I was in YVR during the first heavy snow fall they had in December.....guess what.....as they don't often suffer from heavy snowfall (although moreso than the UK) the airport descended into chaos.

[Globaliser]

I'd bet that most airports that have to deal with winter weather disruptions end up equipping themselves to deal well with everything but the worst two, three or four days a year, when it all goes to pot - regardless of whether they are heavily snowed under frequently, or whether it's relatively rare. That's the sort of thing that you might expect from any airport doing a cost-benefit analysis.

Of course, it's very easy for those who aren't responsible for the budgets, and who like to be in a state of denial about who ultimately foots the bill, to demand that there be total preparedness for every eventuality, whatever the cost.

[WHBM]

One remaining question is why, if Geneva et al have to run to such a substantial amount of apparently vastly-expensive snowclearing equipment, which at Heathrow would be a "waste" because it is rarely used, how can the charges for everything at Geneva be so much less ?

Ah yes, because Geneva has not been flogged off to the highest bidder, to someone persuaded to pay £16bn for it on the basis that all the continuing income can be sucked out of the country and back to the investors. And who therefore, when they find they have bitten off more than they can chew, needs every penny of income not to spend on capital improvements but to repay their mates in the financial world who lent them the money.

So presumably that's why you're not getting any decent snowclearing equipment. Or decent anything else.

[SBully]

And didn't Geneva close for a few hours last weekend anyway?

[NutLoose]

Remember it is the quintessential British thing to do, Leaves on the lines, Snow on the Runways, wrong type of snow, wrong type of leaf and we are damn good at it....

You seriously didn't expect it to all work out and UK PLC not to grind to a halt the minute the first flake hit the roof of Broadcasting House in London did you......

Ha you have far more faith in us than I do.

[Married a Canadian]

So you want BAA to spend millions on suitable equipment that is required once every 18 years, let alone the cost of staff, upkeep and training required for said equipment.........

Ermmmmmm yes!

In aviation (and the rail industry) money is always having to be spent on equipment and planning for that one in a million event.
I'll bet ever since 9/11 the BAA have had to spend s*** loads on terrorist attack contingency plans....and HAZmat evac drills etc etc.
Do they want to? Probably not. What is the alternative if they don't?

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by Married a Canadian

Ermmmmmm yes!

Do you want to pay all that money? Because it'll be you and me, the passengers, paying for that unused equipment. It doesn't come free.

Me, no. I'd rather take the two, three or four days of disruption a year, thanks.

[Married a Canadian]

We already do pay it in the form of airport taxes.

Me, no. I'd rather take the two, three or four days of disruption a year, thanks

That is why Heathrow, no matter what it thinks of itself, will ever be considered a leading global airport.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by Married a Canadian

We already do pay it in the form of airport taxes.

We don't already pay for the millions and millions of pounds worth of extra equipment and training that you would want Heathrow to put in to deal with a once-in-20-years event. We would be paying more than we do to cope with that.

Do you want to pay that? I don't.

Originally Posted by Married a Canadian

That is why Heathrow, no matter what it thinks of itself, will ever be considered a leading global airport.

A bit too late for that sort of sour grapes, methinks.

Anyway, would you like to identify one "leading global airport", in any place where snow can be expected from time to time, that does not suffer a few days of snow-related disruption a year?

[Married a Canadian]

Globaliser

The cost aspect will always be a contentious issue no matter what the situation is. As I have already said I believe in aviation you HAVE to plan for the rare and unexpected because if you don't and it happens you are left with severe egg on your face...and more often than not some lengthy enquiries and lawsuits.

I want to be sure that the BAA, BA, Virgin, NATS etc etc have invested money on planning for events that MAY have a direct impact on customer safety. If that means paying a bit extra...then so be it. It isn't as if we aren't used to paying over the odds in the UK anyway....especially at a BAA airport.

Anyway, would you like to identify one "leading global airport", in any place where snow can be expected from time to time, that does not suffer a few days of snow-related disruption a year?

Disruption?? None

Closure...well my current airport Toronto for a start, ermm Chicago, Montreal, New York, Boston etc etc

I have never said that snow does not cause chaos and disruption. It should not CLOSE an airport...if you know it is coming and it has been forecast.
Get a ground delay program in, cancel afew flights and pool onto one, have a systematic ploughing program in place, Don't try to run a standard operation etc etc.
Heathrow has 2 runways....does not cover a VAST area...and although high in passenger numbers does not come anywhere near the top of the list in aircraft movements on a yearly basis.......so it really should not have to shut down in snow....if a plan was in place.

bit too late for that sort of sour grapes, methinks

.

I am critical of Heathrow because it is capable of so much more.

[Globaliser]

Originally Posted by Married a Canadian

Heathrow has 2 runways....does not cover a VAST area...and although high in passenger numbers does not come anywhere near the top of the list in aircraft movements on a yearly basis.......so it really should not have to shut down in snow....if a plan was in place.

Total movements per annum isn't as important as daily movements per runway. That's going to get you a better idea of the effect of any disruption.

Anyway, LHR was simply disrupted this week. It wasn't like that was very different from the worst two, three or four days of the year at any other airport with winter weather.

Originally Posted by Married a Canadian

I am critical of Heathrow because it is capable of so much more.

Maybe so. But suggesting that it is currently not a "leading global airport" does nothing for your credibility. Like it or not, it is, and is so regarded by the airlines that are desperately keen to fly there.