Nats wants to double UK commercial flights
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has hit the front page in Cambridge.
Headline: Plane Crazy
Strapline: Fury over new flight path plans for Cambridgeshire.
Made it to the front page of the website too, think is the link to the story...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...566c0c19ac.lpf
Headline: Plane Crazy
Strapline: Fury over new flight path plans for Cambridgeshire.
Made it to the front page of the website too, think is the link to the story...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news...566c0c19ac.lpf
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: San Jose
Posts: 727
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, that most impressive of news reporting organs. Famed for barking up trees at random, jumping on passing bandwagons and having sensational headlines in the hope that people will buy it.
I was interested in their remark about "Stacking areas, allowing up to four planes to circle while waiting for a landing slot". Surely you can have more than four in a stack?
As for dumping fuel, I can't quite see any aircraft doing this from choice, given the cost.
I was interested in their remark about "Stacking areas, allowing up to four planes to circle while waiting for a landing slot". Surely you can have more than four in a stack?
As for dumping fuel, I can't quite see any aircraft doing this from choice, given the cost.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nats wants to double UK commercial flights
efficient road, rail and now more than ever air connections are vital to the economic success of this country. people like Mr Churlish seem to have no real idea of how the affluence of the world around them directly effects their own well-being. the vast majority of the money in this country comes from corporate enterprises which rely on air travel to do their business, and it is this money which feeds our huge service industry sector - and even more frivilous enterprises such as, oh , i don't know, recreational hot air ballooning.
i am concerned about possible environmental aspects of all forms of transport. in the long term, rather than slowly choke UK PLC by leaving her arteries to get clogged we should be using the money that she makes to find viable clean alternatives.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LEICESTER
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nats Wants To Double Uk Commercial Flights
NATS (en route) Limited - or 'NERL' - gathers its income by charging aircraft for using routes in UK airspace. These aircraft are charged for the number of route sectors flown through. To set up NERL a lot of money was borrowed from the government and that has to be paid back. A while back NERL wanted to hike-up the charge for the use of its sectors, the fees being referred to as 'chargeable service units', or CSUs. The CAA (or most likely its masters across town in Westminster) wouldn't allow this, presumably to remain competitive and not discouraging flights between the European mainland and the USA from transiting UK airspace and control. So, what's the answer? Create more routes. More routes = more CSU income while keeping the price down. Result: loan being paid off and everyone's happy! Happy, that is, for those in the business and *** the poor ******* below on the ground. If you really want to delve further, look at the list of shareholders in NERL - I seem to recall that the BAA (or was it BA? - I can't remember) pension fund is in there somewhere! Is this assessment wide of the mark? BTW, something like 75%-80% of England lies under lower controlled airspace, with Doncaster/Robin Hood adding another 900 plus square miles.
UK Government policy on civil aviation needs a serious overhaul in view of the rapid environmental changes taking place. 'Predict and provide' has no serious place in planning these days and 'managed demand' with a global view is the sensible and enlightened approach. Most of us have children to hand things over to - what will we leave behind for them?
UK Government policy on civil aviation needs a serious overhaul in view of the rapid environmental changes taking place. 'Predict and provide' has no serious place in planning these days and 'managed demand' with a global view is the sensible and enlightened approach. Most of us have children to hand things over to - what will we leave behind for them?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Southampton
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts!
NERL has no shareholders its a wholly owned subsidary of NATS which does have shareholders. These include a number of airlines, BAA and the UK goverment. NATS is charged with safe and expeditious movement of aircraft in UK airspace and has to respond to goverment policy which at present is looking to increase the number of runways in the south so the air space will need to be modified accordingly. Its Government policy that you nees to change!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK - Hants
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GRAHAM
A while back NERL wanted to hike-up the charge for the use of its sectors, the fees being referred to as 'chargeable service units', or CSUs. presumably to remain competitive and not discouraging flights between the European mainland and the USA from transiting UK airspace and control. So, what's the answer? Create more routes. More routes = more CSU income while keeping the price down.
...
that is, for those in the business and *** the poor ******* below on the ground.
Is this assessment wide of the mark? BTW, something like 75%-80% of England lies under lower controlled airspace, with Doncaster/Robin Hood adding another 900 plus square miles.
...
that is, for those in the business and *** the poor ******* below on the ground.
Is this assessment wide of the mark? BTW, something like 75%-80% of England lies under lower controlled airspace, with Doncaster/Robin Hood adding another 900 plus square miles.
Just how many of these "transiting" aircraft do you expect to be flying at an altitude that directly affects "*** the poor ******* below on the ground"?
Furthermore, I'd been interested to hear how you would expect aircraft operators to avoid "transiting UK airspace" when flying "between the European mainland and the USA" ? Would taking a longer route, or using a congested route liable to delays which thereby caused a greater fuel consumption have a lesser effect upon the environment?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LEICESTER
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nats Wants To Double Uk Commercial Flights
Hello 11K - you are, of course absolutely right. The North Atlantic routes can't do anything else but transit UK airspace and indeed negotiations are taking place regarding fuel-saving Great Circle routes. However, we have seen a pretty big increase in north-south (and other) routes within UK airspace of late. For example, south to north UL613 was added not long ago, as was west-east P155 and UP155, over our neck of the woods. Add to this reduced vertical separation minima - all to cope with increasing demand/avoidance of delays - and you have a growing environmental problem. If you have airports facilitating 24h movements, as we have with a/c taking the P155, you can't guarantee a good night's sleep on the ground beneath such routes. Even a/c passing over at FL245, particularly turboprops, create something of a nuisance, especially during the night. I don't really wish to enter into a protracted debate on this but a/c on upper airways do generate 50 to 55dB(A) at ground level - enough noise to interfere with sleep. The point I was attempting to make is that what we are currently doing is unsustainable - it all comes back to the question 'Is your journey really necessary?'
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: solent-on-sea
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on now, you can't seriously be saying you're disturbed by a turboprop passing overhead at FL240!!! If that's disturbing your sleep you must be woken every time a mouse farts in the woods!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LEICESTER
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, unless you've tried it for yourself don't be too judgmental. Out here in the sticks the ambient night-time noise level is close to 30dB(A) and quite often a bit less. Thus, any noise, whether it be murine flatulence or aircraft throbbing overhead at two in the morning giving out >50dB(A), register as being more than a hundred times noisier than the background. It's the contrast in sound levels that registers on consciousness and consequently disturbs sleep. Unfortunately, most people do not habituate to the noise made by aircraft - shown by recent studies on the effects of aircraft noise on children's educational attainment. Natural sounds, such as rain, rustling leaves or babbling brooks do not have the same negative effect. However, we digress from the original topic, or do we..?
You must have some damn big mice where you live......
A turboprop overhead at FL245 - even the Antheus - is as naught when compared to the gentle murmur of a Vickers FunBus taking off at 0-dark-00 in these here parts.... Swift, Silent, Serene...??
A turboprop overhead at FL245 - even the Antheus - is as naught when compared to the gentle murmur of a Vickers FunBus taking off at 0-dark-00 in these here parts.... Swift, Silent, Serene...??
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or the full reverse thrust of a certain nigerian cargo airline's (that no longer frequents us) dc-10s landing at 03:00 when you've got the window open cos it's a warm summers night! and i used to be 10 miles away...
unfortunately aircraft are part of the great transport machine needed to keep this country running. that turboprop at 240 might disturb your sleep but it may well be taking a letter you posted that afternoon up north. and you expect it to arrive next day... it's not full of smiling punters with rubber dinghys and sunglasses, whose journeys are 'not necessary'.
you want that mail to go by road or rail, then speak to your transport secretary about improving those services (or reducing taxes) to make them economically viable. aviation is a booming industry for the same reason any is. supply and demand.
unfortunately aircraft are part of the great transport machine needed to keep this country running. that turboprop at 240 might disturb your sleep but it may well be taking a letter you posted that afternoon up north. and you expect it to arrive next day... it's not full of smiling punters with rubber dinghys and sunglasses, whose journeys are 'not necessary'.
you want that mail to go by road or rail, then speak to your transport secretary about improving those services (or reducing taxes) to make them economically viable. aviation is a booming industry for the same reason any is. supply and demand.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LEICESTER
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more stones there are to be turned over, the more inconvenient stuff you find underneath. I did draw attention to 'sustainability' and the future of our children and their children. For example, what percentage of mail is 'junk' and what would the preferred mode of transport be for the mail if all modes were taxed equally, driving market forces on a level playing field? The UK has a steadily increasing Balance of Payments deficit - now in the region of £60 billion. We have a mounting trade imbalance in that we're importing huge amounts of fast-moving consumer goods and export much less stuff by value. We also have a colossal tourism imbalance in that there are more UK residents spending abroad than there are inbound tourists, value-wise. Those profiting from short-termism don't appear to give a stuff and are taking a blinkered view. Blind-siding these issues is paying the school fees and the mortgage for some, but for how long? In the meantime, we've seen a massive loss in home-grown engineering and manufacturing in these parts and all we can offer many of our youngsters is stacking, packing, sorting and despatching from the parts of our region suffering from the blight of 'shed rash'. Three cheers for irresponsible globalism, though I've a nasty feeling that it's all going to come crashing down around our ears not too far off in the future. Sorry to be gloomy - it's just that we pessimists are well-informed optimists.
