Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Heathrow hits 70m in 2012

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Matt-100
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2012
    • 568

    Heathrow hits 70m in 2012

    A truly remarkable feat given all the others in the top five have 50%+ more runway capacity (and this number will keep on growing with the new T2 due to open in mid 2014).

    On a more serious note, has anyone seen what the lack of runway capacity at Heathrow has done to the holding patterns? It's not unheard of for 8 or 9 aircraft to be buzzing around each VOR hold at a time, barely separated by the legal minimum.

    Not only does this reduce the margins of error but it also means airlines burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they would otherwise need to.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21496361
    Feel free to check out my aviation pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/lhr_spotter/ - comments welcome
  • Skymonster
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Jul 2004
    • 1986

    #2
    Originally posted by Matt-100 View Post
    A truly remarkable feat given all the others in the top five have 50%+ more runway capacity (and this number will keep on growing with the new T2 due to open in mid 2014).
    Yes, LHR for the most part works right now when things run according to plan. It's worth noting BBC also said "Heathrow achieved an all-time record passenger satisfaction score in a survey produced by the Airports Council International for the third quarter" and I pretty much agree with that... I far prefer to use LHR than most of the other large European hubs like FRA and CDG - only (maybe) AMS edges it although there are aspects of AMS I like less than LHR, and only a smaller scale I guess I like MUC. I prefer LHR's terminals over those at airports like CDG and FRA, most processes are usually quicker (lines for security at FRA for example are usually far worse than LHR these days, and baggage is quite often good at LHR), and I'm even moved to say that for the most part the staff are more friendly at LHR these days. Honestly, anyone who says that LHR is the worst large airport in Europe - these days I don't believe them unless they've had the bad luck to go through LHR in one of the days when things have gone wrong.

    Sure, LHR doesn't work well when things go wrong, but were are a nation of whingers and things like inclement weather also cause problems at other large airports, particularly FRA and CDG - but of course our domestic media doesn't report on those. And so what if Johnny Foreigner, especially those from outside the EU, has to wait a while at LHR immigration - I have no sympathy when I've had to wait (for example) three hours in Chicago, two hours in Washington, two hours in Vancouver, and best not to mention how long it's taken in places like Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Muscat and in India. No way should we be spending lots of money to speed up LHR immigration when other counties do nothing in return.

    Originally posted by Matt-100 View Post
    On a more serious note, has anyone seen what the lack of runway capacity at Heathrow has done to the holding patterns? It's not unheard of for 8 or 9 aircraft to be buzzing around each VOR hold at a time, barely separated by the legal minimum. Not only does this reduce the margins of error but it also means airlines burn a hell of a lot more fuel than they would otherwise need to.
    Yes, and that's why the 3rd runway is really needed... Not to allow extra capacity, but to stop all the holding at BNN, BPK, OCK and LAM that wastes huge amounts of fuel and creates significant noise and emissions pollution, and to stop the equivalent with long taxi holds for outbound flights. The 3rd runway should also be used to create "wriggle room" when one of the exiting runways is closed due to an incident or snow clearance. When I am Minister For Transport, I will allow the 3rd runway but I will limit its capacity so that LHR is not back in the same 90+% congested state within a few years f building it.
    Last edited by Skymonster; 18th February 2013, 20:47.
    "Light travels faster than sound-that's why some people seem bright until they speak"
    AirTeamImages
    - the best aviation photography

    Comment

    • Deano
      Moderator
      • Aug 2003
      • 3098

      #3
      Originally posted by Matt-100 View Post
      It's not unheard of for 8 or 9 aircraft to be buzzing around each VOR hold at a time, barely separated by the legal minimum.
      Come off it, Matt. I thought I was reading a headline from the Daily Mail then. Get to the facts, they are either separated by the legal minima or they're not. The legal minima is there for a reason and it is just that, it is legal. It is more dangerous flying in RVSM airspace at high flight levels with 1,000ft vertical separation than it is holding over a beacon with the same minima lower down. I can see the dramatic headline now - "Aircraft circling above schools and houses with only 1,000ft between them and disaster".
      http://www.findmadeleine.com

      Comment

      • Doors4
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Jul 2011
        • 124

        #4
        Originally posted by Skymonster View Post
        When I am Minister For Transport, I will allow the 3rd runway but I will limit its capacity so that LHR is not back in the same 90+% congested state within a few years f building it.
        I vote Skymonster!

        Agree with everything else you say too, except for I hate AMS. Maybe I'm unlucky with gates but whenever I've occassionally used AMS I seemed to be forever walking along never-ending piers.

        Comment

        Unconfigured Ad Widget

        Collapse

         

        Working...
        X