|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 14:30:29 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: On Nov 6, 9:37*pm, 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: 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. Are they ********. You might think that, the facts say otherwise. Page 45 of the pdf http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publication...throw-2010.pdf That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering. -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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! -- |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 11:00:05 +0000
The Other Mike wrote: That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering. Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather offsets any reduction in engine noise. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message , at 11:02:14 on Mon, 7 Nov
2011, d remarked: That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering. Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather offsets any reduction in engine noise. Heathrow was operating at 35% of capacity 12 years ago? Pull the other one. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 11:05:47 +0000
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:02:14 on Mon, 7 Nov 2011, d remarked: That only goes back 12 years, go back to the mid 80's and the improvement in the noise signature seen today is staggering. Except there are probably 3 times as many plane movements now which rather offsets any reduction in engine noise. Heathrow was operating at 35% of capacity 12 years ago? Pull the other one. I was talking about compared to the 80s when air traffic control systems were a lot more primitive. Probably 3 times is overstating it but its still a lot more than back then. B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 4, 9:40*pm, Bruce wrote:
There is huge demand for cheap charter flights to/from Gatwick, and they take off and land throughout the day and night. *In summer, the airport is almost at busy at night as in the day. Interesting. LTN has a lot of charters and holiday flights as well, and no longer closes completely from 0000-0600 like it used to - but there is only one flight between those hours, an 0130 to somewhere in eastern Europe (Wizzair). Neil |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message
, at 03:43:25 on Mon, 7 Nov 2011, Neil Williams remarked: LTN has a lot of charters and holiday flights as well, and no longer closes completely from 0000-0600 like it used to - but there is only one flight between those hours, an 0130 to somewhere in eastern Europe (Wizzair). There's the inbound flight too. Five out of the seven last flights in the evening are Wizzair too (but the last is a fairly early 9.05pm) and twelve out of the first thirteen morning arrivals are Wizzair (having taken off at around 6am). I bet there's a bit of a crush at immigration at 7.45am. -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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)? B2003 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
"The Other Mike" wrote 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! It may be quieter, but it's nowhere near quiet enough to be acceptable. Peter |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
|
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
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 |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 9, 11:03*am, wrote:
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. Not a big country but a fairly crowded one - similar in many ways to the South East of England. Neil |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 16:05:12 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote: 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 Thanks. A page of fascinating facts. ;-) I don't think it's ever been much higher than that. My ex-BAA source says it has, but he thinks it was some years back. e is going to check. |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On Nov 7, 11:54*pm, The Other Mike
wrote: 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! The correct solution to this problem is to build a properly sized airport in a location with room for 4-6 runways, where the approaches do not overfly residential areas, and to build good connections to ground transportation infrastructure. Then shift all of the traffic from Heathrow to the new site, and shut down Heathrow. It's time Heathrow went the way of Hong Kong Kai Tak or London Croydon aerodrome. Robin |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
In message
, at 02:12:09 on Thu, 10 Nov 2011, bob remarked: The correct solution to this problem is to build a properly sized airport in a location with room for 4-6 runways, where the approaches do not overfly residential areas, and to build good connections to ground transportation infrastructure. Then shift all of the traffic from Heathrow to the new site, and shut down Heathrow. Good luck finding a site. I wasn't easy when all they wanted was London's third airport. Although Borisport is in many ways Maplin v2.0 -- Roland Perry |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
On 10/11/2011 10:12, bob wrote:
On Nov 7, 11:54 pm, The Other wrote: 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! The correct solution to this problem is to build a properly sized airport in a location with room for 4-6 runways, where the approaches do not overfly residential areas, and to build good connections to ground transportation infrastructure. Then shift all of the traffic from Heathrow to the new site, and shut down Heathrow. It's time Heathrow went the way of Hong Kong Kai Tak or London Croydon aerodrome. OK, where are you going to put it? -- Graeme Wall This account not read, substitute trains for rail. Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail |
London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
We were about to embark at Dover, when (bob) came up to
me and whispered: The correct solution to this problem is to build a properly sized airport in a location with room for 4-6 runways, where the approaches do not overfly residential areas, and to build good connections to ground transportation infrastructure. Then shift all of the traffic from Heathrow to the new site, and shut down Heathrow. London Maplin? -- Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead Wasting Bandwidth since 1981 IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is evil please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx ---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ---- |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 08:00 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk