A reminder of why I avoid Heathrow
 

:confused:Not to duplicate the R&N thread on the BA RTB this morning, but I am amazed that BA had to cancel +/- 200 flights. Given that its a UK Bank holiday weekend it's going to be days until everyone gets where they are going.

I fully understand that they closed both runway whilst the fire appliances were occupied, but shouldn't they have sufficient equipment to handle two simultaneous incidents? Does this happen at any other airport?

One runway required sweeping for debris (allegedly), the other was blocked by the aircraft.

With LHR handling 1400 flights a day, this was a comparatively small proportion and a great effort by airlines, agents, airports and ATC. The Stansted incident also affected LHR due to protected airspace and this contributed to the issue. Well done to everyone yesterday. There were 000s of poor customers affected but a huge effort is being made to get them on their way.

So where else would you fly that won't stop traffic during an incident? Stansted? Birmingham? Gatwick? All operating single runway ops, if someone has an incident one it, it (for obvious reasons) goes out of service.

You could double the heathrow fire cover, but do you really expect someone to pay for that? And if what is posted above is true (both runways out of service) then it wouldn't have helped anyway.

Whose going to reopen the debate for a 3rd runway at LHR? This will give the pro group ammunition they need.

CV I understand they closed the second runway because they could not assure safety with all the fire safety equipment devoted to the incident on the other runway.

Where would they get the money? My gods, the amount of money flowing to the exchequer from passengers using Heathrow would buy a million pieces of equipment, train and pay the crews and give them a free daily cuppa.

I've never heard of similar situations at other multi-runway airports. Obviously any time a runway is closed there will be some impact, but the cancellation of all BA short-haul flights from 8AM to 4PM appears extreme.

I acknowledge that there may be very good reasons why BA took this decision however being completely selfish I certainly will keep this incident in mind when booking my next connecting journey. Things don't go pear-shaped at LHR, they very quickly become elephant-shaped. At least 18,000 BA customers were impacted to some degree or another. Given BA's poor level of customer service it is going to be months, if ever, before this is sorted.

And no I wouldn't go via another UK airport, I'd likely use one of those European airports that have more than two runways. CDG, AMS, FRA, ZRH all spring to mind.

ExXB,

The issue of decreased/disappeared fire cover I feel remains valid independently from the number or runways.

I take it you refer to LHR only? Nevertheless, I would find that questionable since surely an airport using two runways simultaneously must have enough cover for the possibility of simultaneous emergencies.

canceling lots of flights is an easy option for BA - they've done it before because of snow etc

there is no real effort put into emergency planning or any significant attempt to work around the problem

Just STOP and let the SLF come back tomorrow...............

The hours of closure for the runways were about one hour for one, and two hours for the other.

Quite why BA, uniquely, then cancelled their entire short-haul operation for eight hours is ludicrous. Other carriers appear to have operated their entire programme through these hours. If cancellations really were required, then everyone can do them equally. The BA short-haul operation is not a trivial part of the Heathrow programme, it is a substantial proportion.

In passing, can we get away from those who parrot out "well done everyone" when there is gross disruption and/or an incident. A large number of pax were hugely inconvenienced all round, that is certainly does not merit any "Well Done" comment. "Well done" is when you manage to AVOID the inconvenience to them.

Scarily, on Thursday I attended a meeting in which someone from Eurocontrol gave a presentation, which included an analysis of the knock-on effects of a theoretical two-hour closure of LHR.

SSK
Are you able to share any details of the presentation? The knock on effect did seem excessive................but then again this is LHR :)

WHBM how was BA expected to run a full operation with more than a dozen flights diverted and inbound slot delays in excess of 3 hours even when both runways opened due to the backlog of demand and the need to repatriate diversions. It would have taken until the next morning thus impacting another day. far better to stop and start again in a controlled way. all large scale American carriers have adopted this process for years at congested hubs.
Other carriers are less affected as they just swap to another aircraft at their main base and wait for the slot to tick over.

Where would they get the money? My gods, the amount of money flowing to the exchequer from passengers using Heathrow would buy a million pieces of equipment, train and pay the crews and give them a free daily cuppa.

The money goes to the exchequer as you say and not to HAL and our beloved government is not going to hand over any cash to pay for equipment.

It was notable that at least Air France and KLM substituted large widebodies (a 777-300 and an MD-11 respectively) on their next flights into Heathrow after the closure ended, which hoovered up their backlog, but BA, from their home base, never managed one, despite having what I believe is the largest widebody fleet in Europe.

Ignore the HUD - I don't think so but in any case it dealt with the effect on the entire European network of such an event occurring ... in 2035. A closure between 09:00 and 11:00 would cause severe ATFCM delays throughout the afternoon, at their worst between 13:00 and 19:00 (aren't computers wonderful?)

I merely commented on the spookiness of the coincidence.

Hotel Tango,

I was referring to LHR. Two incidents, I guess, would generate a different distribution of the available resources. And two emergencies at the same time might be rare since one aircraft declaring an emergency will lead to airport closing for the duration.

Rwy in Sight

RIS - that suggest to me that at the first instance of an emergency all arrivals/departures would have to be suspended.

i.e. A319 takes off and sheds cowling. Radios that he's coming back. (or inbound reports braking issue/tyre burst/nutter on board/etc.). All aircraft already in the pattern to land told to go-around and go-away. Aircraft in the queue to depart on parallel runway (yes, I know that doesn't happen at LHR) told to go away and park somewhere out of the way.

I'm now even more uncomfortable using Heathrow even as a destination, if they can't assure support for two major incidents.

I don't think RIS is speaking with any inside knowledge of Heathrow ops. He's just making assumptions. The odds of simultaneous emergencies (e.g. one on arrival and one on departure with no pre warning) would be extremely rare. However, I'm assuming that the airport legally requires adequate cover for that eventuality. Therefore, the reason for runway closure was not the unavailability of emergency cover but a thorough inspection for any debris on the departing runway. The rest (re delays and cancellations) is explained by Porky Speedpig.

HT,

You are right I don't have a special knowledge of LHR operations. I think, I read on the main thread about the incident was the lack of fire cover. And I am wondering how long does a runway inspection take. I did few (unfortunately) during my time in the Air Force and it was a fairly straightforward think (military runway 9849 x 98 ft / 3002.0 x 29.9 m) albeit not after an incident but a routine inspection.

Maybe British tend to be overly safety related.

Rwy in Sight