London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 18:13:35 +0000, Sam Wilson
wrote:
Have you flown on Emirates?

Nope, not as yet.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 04/11/2011 18:13, Sam Wilson wrote:
In ual.net,
Neil wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:
Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for
Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for
0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of
time.

Have you flown on Emirates? Lots of their flights transit Dubai in the
wee smalls, allegedly because the weather conditions during the day can
be fierce.

Could that be to get sensible times at the "real" start and end points?

I've not been to Dubai or used Emirates, but I got an Ethiad flight home
from Abu Dhabi which left at something like 02:45. It arrived in London
in time for work (boo!), but a lot of people seemed to be in transit.


--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 04/11/2011 17:50, Neil Williams wrote:
On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 17:45:33 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:
Which is why, currently there is a curfew at LHR. The claim for
Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

That sort of depends on destination - I can't see a lot of demand for
0300 departures to many places, nor really arrivals at that sort of time.


Remember you are dealing with a globe. Already there have been
complaints that because of the curfew at Heathrow other cities,
especially in the east, get late night departures/arrivals.

Also 24/7 operation gives you another 400 take-off and landing slots a
day. Double that if you could actually make the double twin runway
layout work.

The other elephant in the room that the Halcrow/Foster plan ignores is
that even if Borisport gets built it doesn't mean that Heathrow will
shut down.

--
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
 

In message , at 17:45:33 on Fri, 4 Nov
2011, Graeme Wall 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.

That'll be for people living really close.

The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing
London either. Simples.
--
Roland Perry

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

In message , at
17:50:58 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor
really arrivals at that sort of time.

It happens in many parts of the world. And if that's the time your daily
flight is on that route, you just have to fit in.
--
Roland Perry

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

In uk.railway Andy Breen twisted the electrons to say:
On Thu, 03 Nov 2011 16:47:12 +0000, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\11\03 08:14, Graeme Wall wrote:
I read through the glossy brochure, which admittedly doesn't give a lot
of detail, and as far as I can make out the airport is going to be
practically on top of the SS Richard Montgomery! Also there is no
mention of the bird problem in the Thames Estuary.
The SS Richard Montgomery will get rid of the bird problem...
And reduce carbon emissions from the airport at the same time. Job's a
good 'un.

Whilst reducing/eliminating the need for future "regeneration funding"
for nearby towns?
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:15:32 +0000, The Other Mike
wrote:

On Thu, 3 Nov 2011 21:54:07 +0000 (UTC), Andy Breen
wrote:

And the more wiggling about they do, the more fuel they will have to burn
particularly if they have to do it just after take-off, when they're
heavy with fuel.

What utter ********. The quicker they can get to altitude the better
from a fuel usage point of view, but they are usually climbing most of
the time during a departure, that they have to fairly rapidly change
their heading two or three times in a pre determined sequence is
irrelevant to overall fuel burn.

That's got immediate environmental costs, will add to
operating costs and could make the airport unattractive for airlines
operating the very long-haul routes (Japan, Australia..).

It's no different to departures at many airports worldwide, you don't
just take off and carry on in the same direction to your destination.

You also really don't want to be manoevering at maximum weight and have
an engine ingest a goose. That could lead to substantial stress in the
cockpit.

Better drain those reservoirs near Heathrow then.

Doesn't the film of aviation fuel discourage birds from using them ?

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 17:07:44 -0000, "Paul Rigg"
wrote:


If you're going to be spending billions on interconnecting main line
railways in London it might be better spent on tunnels between the
existing terminii, a bit like the Germans have done in Berlin.

Unfortunately, ITYF there is now too much plumbing in the way unless
you start burrowing some distance before the termini.

(admitedly Berlin does have an orbital railway, but it is used for the
S-Bahn and only individual sections of it for long distance trains).

Actually Berlin has 2 orbital railways- the inner which was is used by the S
Bahn and the outer one which was built by the DDR so that their trains from
the Wester part of the DDR could go round to Lichtenberg, Karlhorst etc and
avoid West Berlin.

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

In uk.railway Roland Perry twisted the electrons to say:
In message , at
17:50:58 on Fri, 4 Nov 2011, Neil Williams
remarked:
I can't see a lot of demand for 0300 departures to many places, nor
really arrivals at that sort of time.
It happens in many parts of the world. And if that's the time your daily
flight is on that route, you just have to fit in.

nods I've landed at Melbourne at 0400, and actually it does have it's
advantages. Since there's much less traffic at that time in the morning
you apparently get through immigration much faster than if you land at a
civilised time.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...

London Hub proposal published by Halcrow/Foster+Partners
 

On 04/11/2011 19:21, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:45:33 on Fri, 4 Nov
2011, Graeme Wall 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.

That'll be for people living really close.

The claim for Borisport is that it will operate 24/7.

With no-one living really close, and the flight paths not crossing
London either. Simples.

You are the one that is simple. There are quite a few built up areas in
the South East even if you want to ignore London. Then there is the
question of what happens when the winds are easterly.

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