On 07/11/2011 11:00, The Other Mike wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:59:32 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 06/11/2011 21:37, The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 04/11/2011 17:12, Roland Perry wrote:
In , at 16:59:33 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme remarked:
There's no reason to suppose that flightpaths from an estuary airport
would be routed over central London at all.

There's also no reason to suppose they won't be.

To reduce the noise.

Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for
Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

Why should that be a worry? If you compare the noise created by an
airport now to that say 20-25 years ago then they are almost silent
and getting even more quiet year on year.



Total nonsense.

If you can't tell the difference between the noise an airport makes
now and what it did 25 years ago then either you are too young to have
been around 25 years ago or you really ought to get your ears tested!



Never mind 25 years ago, 55 years ago I lived next door to Heathrow! It
is certainly a ruddy sight noisier now. While individual aircraft are
quieter than those in normal service 25 years now there are a lot more
of them and they come and go much more frequently.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Sun, 06 Nov 2011 21:38:20 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 21:47:30 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 04/11/2011 21:34, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:18:10 on Fri, 4
Nov 2011, Graeme Wall remarked:

Then there is the question of what happens when the winds are easterly.

The sound doesn't blow that far (and the takeoffs will be across the
north sea).

But the approaches won't be.

Indeed. They'll be turning onto the runway from east of London.

Maybe. Approach tracks are generally longer than take-off tracks the
glide slope being much flatter.

But for the vast majority of the approach the engines are on idle and
thus significantly less noisy than on departure.



For the vast majority of the approach, the flaps are used. This
generates significant drag as well as increased lift. This in turn
means that the engines are called upon to produce increased power.
They are most certainly not idling.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:14:05 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:57:06 +0000
The Other Mike wrote:
The sooner they start building that thrid runway the better and in
parallel build Boris Island.

Why? Why exactly do we need more aircraft movements (and spare me the ********
"business" reasons, they're specious at best, downright lies at worst)?

Safety


Taking the top 10 airports by passengers

Atlanta 5
Beijing 3
Heathrow 2
Chicago 7
Los Angeles 4
Paris CDG 4
Tokyo Haneda 4
Dallas FW 7
Frankfurt 4
Denver 6

Taking the top 13 airports by aircraft movements

Atlanta 5
Chicago 7
Los Angeles 4
Dallas FW 7
Denver 6
Houston 5
Charlotte 4
Beijing 3
Las Vegas 4
Paris CDG 4
Frankfurt 4
Philadelphia 4
Heathrow 2

Or other European hubs

Madrid 4
Amsterdam 6

All have more than 2 runways (the figure is after each name above is
their runway total)

Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the
night curfew.

That the movements have flatlined at saturation point given that
bigger aircraft need bigger gaps on approach) for the last 10 years
while f*ck all is done to build a third runway is a disgrace.

1300 aircraft a day, over 18 hours operation per day is one movement
EVERY 72 SECONDS

Like I said, the reason is safety. If Heathrow had been in a tin pot
nation in the Far East or Africa or South America then the locals
would have been wiped out by plane crashes decades ago.

The third runway should have been up and running well before now and
planning of a fourth well advanced. If you don't like aircraft noise
then don't live anywhere near one!


--

In article ,
(The Other Mike) wrote:

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 14:14:05 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 12:57:06 +0000
The Other Mike wrote:
The sooner they start building that thrid runway the better and in
parallel build Boris Island.

Why? Why exactly do we need more aircraft movements (and spare me the
******** "business" reasons, they're specious at best, downright lies at
worst)?

Safety


Taking the top 10 airports by passengers

Atlanta 5
Beijing 3
Heathrow 2
Chicago 7
Los Angeles 4
Paris CDG 4
Tokyo Haneda 4
Dallas FW 7
Frankfurt 4
Denver 6

Taking the top 13 airports by aircraft movements

Atlanta 5
Chicago 7
Los Angeles 4
Dallas FW 7
Denver 6
Houston 5
Charlotte 4
Beijing 3
Las Vegas 4
Paris CDG 4
Frankfurt 4
Philadelphia 4
Heathrow 2

Or other European hubs

Madrid 4
Amsterdam 6

All have more than 2 runways (the figure is after each name above is
their runway total)

Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the
night curfew.

That the movements have flatlined at saturation point given that
bigger aircraft need bigger gaps on approach) for the last 10 years
while f*ck all is done to build a third runway is a disgrace.

1300 aircraft a day, over 18 hours operation per day is one movement
EVERY 72 SECONDS

Like I said, the reason is safety. If Heathrow had been in a tin pot
nation in the Far East or Africa or South America then the locals
would have been wiped out by plane crashes decades ago.

The third runway should have been up and running well before now and
planning of a fourth well advanced. If you don't like aircraft noise
then don't live anywhere near one!

No it should not. Heathrow airport is too close to London to be allowed to
expand at all.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:54:06 +0000
The Other Mike wrote:
Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the

Total and utter ********.

The third runway should have been up and running well before now and
planning of a fourth well advanced. If you don't like aircraft noise
then don't live anywhere near one!

So don't live anywhere in london then? Yes, a sensible solution. Not.

B2003

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:54:06 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the
night curfew.


If Heathrow served only passengers who were starting or completing
their journey in the UK, there would be masses of spare capacity.

The last statistics I saw were several years ago, but Heathrow had the
highest percentage of transfer passengers of any major European
airport. 70% of passengers were international travellers transferring
from one flight to another; only 30% were starting or completing their
journey in the UK.

So the overall limits on capacity at Heathrow are not the problem for
the UK economy. BAA benefits from international transfer passengers,
but the UK economy doesn't.

On 08/11/2011 19:52, Bruce wrote:
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:54:06 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the
night curfew.


If Heathrow served only passengers who were starting or completing
their journey in the UK, there would be masses of spare capacity.

The last statistics I saw were several years ago, but Heathrow had the
highest percentage of transfer passengers of any major European
airport.

They take one look at Heathrow, see the queues to get into Britain, and
decide not to stick around?



--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Nov 8, 7:52*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 22:54:06 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

Heathrow and the UK economy is being crippled by two runways, and the
night curfew.

If Heathrow served only passengers who were starting or completing
their journey in the UK, there would be masses of spare capacity.

The last statistics I saw were several years ago, but Heathrow had the
highest percentage of transfer passengers of any major European
airport. *70% of passengers were international travellers transferring
from one flight to another; only 30% were starting or completing their
journey in the UK.

Transfer passengers accounted for 35.4% of LHR passenger numbers in
2010:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33e9utk

I don't think it's ever been much higher than that.

In message
, at
16:05:12 on Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Mizter T remarked:
Transfer passengers accounted for 35.4% of LHR passenger numbers in
2010:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/33e9utk

I don't think it's ever been much higher than that.

It's usually reckoned that Schiphol is the european airport with the
most transfer passengers (40%). Of course, transfer passengers also
benefit the local economy because they will be accounting for a third of
the jobs created locally by the presence of the airport, as well as jobs
actually at the airport. And they help make sure that flights are still
economic to those destinations where there aren't quite enough UK
passengers.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:57:21 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
It's usually reckoned that Schiphol is the european airport with the
most transfer passengers (40%). Of course, transfer passengers also

That doesn't surprise me. I've often wondered why a tiny little country
like the netherlands with its tinky winky little capital city needs such a
huge airport.

B2003