Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Willie Walsh : A380 May Reduce LHR Capacity  
User currently offlineNYC777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 10062 times:

From BA head honcho himself:

Fair Use Excerpt:

The A380 was supposed to have provided effectively the capacity of three airport landing slots for the price of two, Walsh said. ''That was the sales talk,'' he said. ''We know the outcome has been rather different.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=conews&tkr=BA:US&sid=alRzsJ5zx89Q

46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBoomBoom From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 10006 times:

Quote:
Turbulence from the jumbo jet's wake will require a separation between planes of an extra two nautical miles ''for at least the first couple of years of operation,'' cutting the number of flights at Heathrow, Walsh said...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=conews&tkr=BA:US&sid=alRzsJ5zx89Q


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9865 times:

try

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...=conews&tkr=BA:US&sid=alRzsJ5zx89Q


User currently offlineStitch From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 9834 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well it looks like Airbus is trying to gather more data to see if a more refined seperation ruling is possible - Airbus To Re-Test A380 Separations (by Leelaw Nov 13 2006 in Civil Aviation)

User currently offlinePITrules From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9601 times:

I think Heathrow should take the blame on this one. A simple way to increase the airport's capacity would be to allow one or two departures from the same runway in between an A-380 arrival and the next arrival.

However, their refusal to adopt mixed mode operations would prohibit this.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 9499 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
However, their refusal to adopt mixed mode operations would prohibit this.

From what I've been told you really don't want somebody taxing onto a runway with another airplane on short final. Scares the hell out of the pax when the pilot has to do a go around if the plane doesn't take off quickly enough.

Perhaps some tower operators might have something to say about this.


User currently offlineScouseflyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 9215 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
wever, their refusal to adopt mixed mode operations would prohibit this

They have applied for permission to do it from 2010 IIRC but there may have to be (yet another) public enquiry


User currently offlineEbbUK From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9160 times:

BA is not likely to be affected by reduced LHR capacity.

Could this be sales neogiations by big Willie? Is the 380 heading in a BA direction?


User currently offlineIkramerica From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9004 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
I think Heathrow should take the blame on this one.

Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.

If mixed mode is the answer for capacity, it can be done for 747s as well, and still increase capacity at the airport. If mixed mode is required for the A380 to live up to promises, then those are empty promises.

After all, Boeing could start advertising right now: "Our entire fleet can increase capacity at any airport if you force your airport to change procedures to acomodate us..."

This is a similar false argument made by diet plan companies. Buy our food and lose weight*!! (*as long as you also exercise way more than you do now and stop snacking as well, otherwise you might as well just keep eating pizza...)

If the A380 reduces "fat" by forcing you to change your behavior, it's not really doing much at all that changing your behavior couldn't have done on it's own...


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8914 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
If mixed mode is the answer for capacity, it can be done for 747s as well, and still increase capacity at the airport. If mixed mode is required for the A380 to live up to promises, then those are empty promises.

This argument can be made for any class of aircraft. The issue is what happens if a outgoing aircraft taxis into the runway and has a minor problem? If there if a line of planes trying to take off behind it, then very little.

But in this so-called dual-mode mode you have a big problem:

IF there is a plane on final with the runway blocked, you have a go-a-round. The pax do not like this. In fact, they hate it. They fear that they are almost going to die! "Oh, MY GOD, THE PILOT COULDN'T LAND. I ALMOST HAD A HEART ATTACK!" Yada, yada, yada.

No, there is a real reason why airplanes take off on one runway and land on another if at all possible. It is call bloody terrible experience.


User currently offlineVV701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8871 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
I think Heathrow should take the blame on this one. A simple way to increase the airport's capacity would be to allow one or two departures from the same runway in between an A-380 arrival and the next arrival.

However, their refusal to adopt mixed mode operations would prohibit this.

Departures from 09L at LHR would be illegal. This was known before the 380 was even a twinkle in Airbus's eye.

As far as operating in mixed mode on 27L and 27R there is a very strong and well organised NIMBY lobby that is well organised and has become very vocal since the UK government indicated the possibility of mixed mode operations at LHR in the spring of last year. (If you want to see how well organised and vocal google 'Heathrow mixed mode'.)

So there is a simple question. If mixed mode is introduced on 27L and 27R to accommodate the 380 what happens when there is an easterly wind and departures from 09L cannot take place?

So one thing is clear. Neither BAA or Heathrow Airport Ltd are law makers so clearly they

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
take the blame on this one


User currently offlineDank From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8834 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 9):
No, there is a real reason why airplanes take off on one runway and land on another if at all possible. It is call bloody terrible experience.

RDU does this, even though they have parallel runways (I assume to shorten taxi times because of the location of the terminals) (and CDG must have done this before they had two sets of parallel runways also due to terminal location).
The only time I have had a concern at RDU was the time that my flight had permission to land reverse the direction of traffic to shorten taxi time (delayed departure). Nothing like seeing the lights of incoming aircraft coming toward you for the same runway as your plane makes it's final turn on approach.

cheers.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8811 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 4):
I think Heathrow should take the blame on this one. A simple way to increase the airport's capacity would be to allow one or two departures from the same runway in between an A-380 arrival and the next arrival.

However, their refusal to adopt mixed mode operations would prohibit this.

I'd imagine that would be quite tricky to implement effectively in practise.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
Departures from 09L at LHR would be illegal. This was known before the 380 was even a twinkle in Airbus's eye.

One rather special plane used to get away with it after the A380 was launched.

[Edited 2006-11-14 02:11:45]

User currently offlinePlanesarecool From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8707 times:

Actually, LHR do operate mixed mode operations on the 27's, to an extent. Currently all departures use 27L, due to work on the taxiways near 27R, however to reduce the amount of runway crossings, various aircraft bound for the south side (T4, Cargo, Royal Suites) use 27L to land throughout the day, and not just in the early morning.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 9):
IF there is a plane on final with the runway blocked, you have a go-a-round. The pax do not like this. In fact, they hate it. They fear that they are almost going to die! "Oh, MY GOD, THE PILOT COULDN'T LAND. I ALMOST HAD A HEART ATTACK!" Yada, yada, yada.

But this can also happen with an arriving aircraft, if it misses an exit, or just takes longer to slow down. I've seen many instances in just one day at LHR where aircraft have been over the perimeter road before receiving landing clearance. Even at somewhere like Gatwick in the height of the summer, where only one runway is used for it's vast amount of arrivals and departures, aborted landings are very rare.


User currently offlineDw747400 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 8656 times:

Quoting EbbUK (Reply 7):
Could this be sales neogiations by big Willie? Is the 380 heading in a BA direction?

My guess is that any arm-twisting is aimed at an expansion of LHR rather than at getting the A380.


User currently offlinePITrules From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 8495 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 5):
From what I've been told you really don't want somebody taxing onto a runway with another airplane on short final.

Why would there be an aircraft taxiing onto the runway when someone is on short final??? The departing aircraft would taxi onto the runway after the A-380 on short final lands. The next arriving aircraft would be on a long final due to the wake turbulence separation.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
Sorry, but this argument doesn't hold water.

Yes, it does.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
If mixed mode is the answer for capacity, it can be done for 747s as well, and still increase capacity at the airport.

Exactly. But LHR won't do it. Many other airports around the world do.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
If mixed mode is required for the A380 to live up to promises, then those are empty promises.

I agree. I am not making excuses for Airbus's empty promises. My point is that LHR may improve the situation by going to dual mode operations, but refuses to.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 8):
After all, Boeing could start advertising right now: "Our entire fleet can increase capacity at any airport if you force your airport to change procedures to acomodate us..."

As stated, most airports, from JFK to SYD, operate in a dual mode when it benefits them, so Boeing doesn't need to make such a claim, although it would be valid at LHR.

Quoting Poitin (Reply 9):
But in this so-called dual-mode mode you have a big problem:

IF there is a plane on final with the runway blocked, you have a go-a-round.

Which happens less than one percent of the time. A go-around is a normal maneuver, it happens every day.

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 12):
I'd imagine that would be quite tricky to implement effectively in practise.

Why? LGW and SAN do it just fine. Ever been to ORD?


My point is very simple. Dozens of airports take advantage of the wake turbulence separation on arriving aircraft to launch departing aircraft. If LHR doesn't want to take advantage of the extra space, that's their business, but other airports certainly will.

[Edited 2006-11-14 04:26:54]

User currently offlineKhobar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 8320 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 15):
My point is very simple. Dozens of airports take advantage of the wake turbulence separation on arriving aircraft to launch departing aircraft. If LHR doesn't want to take advantage of the extra space, that's their business, but other airports certainly will.

LHR, as the world's busiest international airport expecting 1 in 8 ops to be A380 is THE most important A380 hub. What any other airport decides to do is kinda beside the point.


User currently offlineTangowhisky From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8194 times:

So is Walsh negotiating for A380s, putting pressure on BAA to improve thruput, or is his mind made up for something else (747-8?)?

User currently offlineSlz396 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 8060 times:

Quoting Tangowhisky (Reply 17):
So is Walsh negotiating for A380s, putting pressure on BAA to improve thruput, or is his mind made up for something else (747-8?)?

Given the fact there is a second thread on this forum in which BA's CEO openly praises the A380 and even speculates himself about an upcoming order (including a number), I think it is indeed a hint BA are in talks with Airbus on A380s.... whether or not it leads to an order, remains to be seen of course, but they are definitely talking in my view.

Besides, even if BA doesn't,they might still want to set some pressure on BAA to come up with a solution or have the UK CAA relax the rules, since the new separation rules for 'supers' as they are called will also apply for the 748I if I am not mistaken? As I understand it, the lower margin for 'super' is set at 'anything bigger than a 747-400', so the alternative to the A380 for BA, i.e 747-8i falls in it too and would suffer even more from the same "problem"...

[Edited 2006-11-14 10:25:14]

User currently offlineSailorOrion From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8024 times:

It somehow sounds as if "mixed mode" operations are a new idea. In fact, many many airports use mixed mode as a normal mode of operations (single runway airports anyone?)....

SailorOrion


User currently offlineANstar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7992 times:

Quoting Poitin (Reply 5):
From what I've been told you really don't want somebody taxing onto a runway with another airplane on short final. Scares the hell out of the pax when the pilot has to do a go around if the plane doesn't take off quickly enough.

Isn;t this how Gatwick already operate?


User currently offlineABC9 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7244 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 20):
Isn;t this how Gatwick already operate?

Yes it is, and another example is DUB which handles 20m+ passengers per annum with just one runway


User currently offlineTheginge From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 7134 times:

09L Departures at LHR are not 'Illegal'. There is the Cranford Agreement that when on easteriles only 09R is used for take off to avoid low flying aircraft over Cranford, but departures can be made from 09L, for example if 09R was out of action for a short time.

Go to the ATC forum of another well known Aviation Discussion site, there is currently a thread discussing the pros and cons of mixed mode.


User currently offlineVV701 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6063 times:

It is not clear to me whether everyone participating in this thread is clear as to why LHR does not in general operate mixed mode.

As I have already stated mixed mode operations and all departures are banned from 09L and this ban is legally enforceable as it came about to protect a community adjacent to the west end of the runway from the noise of departing aircraft when granting planning permission under the 1948 Town & Country Planning Act.

Mixed mode operation does occur from time to time on 09R, the only runway at LHR where there is no legal or other reason restricting mixed mode operation.

A switch system is operated when 27R and 27L are in use. This involves a change in runway use at 1500 hours local time from arrivals to departures and vice-versa. There is also a switch early on Monday morning - when the airport is effectively closed - when the arrival runway for the previous 7 days becomes the departure runway for the next 7 days.

The system operated on 27R and 27L is not legally enforceable. It is done for environmental reasons. The approach path is from the City of London and more or less follows the path of the Thames over Battersea, Wandsworth, Putney, Fulham, Hammersmith, Richmond and Hounslow that, apart from Putney Heath/Wimbledom Common and Richmond Park are all heavily built up primarily residential areas. The system is operated to give those living under the flight path respite from an aircraft passing overhead every 90 seconds.

In the spring of 2005 the UK government announced it would look into mixed mode operation at LHR and report back by Easter 2006. Easter has come and gone and as far as I am aware nothing has been said or done which is pretty much par for the course. However in their spring 2005 announcement the government said that no changes would be made 'without full consultation' and - as I pointed out earlier - the NIMBYs are well organised and vocal.

The first point to note is that London Heathrow Airport Ltd, BAA plc and the LHR ATC are totally powerless to implement mixed mode operation. Such a change can only be made by the British government.

But whatever happens next it seems to me there is one major problem. With no mixed mode operation currently legally possible on 09L (and therefore in any approach from the west) how could you put a timetable together based on mixed mode operation in the (more frequent) approaches from the east? Further it is my view that the British government would find it almost impossible with thew current strength of the European environmental lobby o allow mixed mode operation on approach from the east let alone overthrow a condition of planning through a new Act of Parliament. After all they have just agreed to pay compensation to jailed users of illegal drugs for infringing their rights under the European Human Rights Law by not supplying them with their drugs or methadone while in prison and making them go cold turkey.


User currently offlinePoitin From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 6010 times:

Quoting ABC9 (Reply 21):
Quoting ANstar (Reply 20):
Isn;t this how Gatwick already operate?

Yes it is, and another example is DUB which handles 20m+ passengers per annum with just one runway

That is because it has only one runway that can handle airliners.


25 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Thanks VV701 Your comments would have been welcome when the issue was being discussed on this thread. UK - New "super" Wake Vortex Sep For A
26 Jacobin777 : Britain needs to change antiquated laws... Britain needs to change a lot of laws....
27 FlyDreamliner : It was tested twice officially, I'm not entirely sure what Airbus hopes to do testing it a third time by itself. Quite frankly, its largely wake vort
28 Astuteman : Provided it doesn't get snarled up in the same wake-vortex issues that the A380 has ......... Regards
29 Threepoint : It appears the 748 may be held to the same separation rules as the A380:
30 PITrules : Here we go again. LHR is not the world's busiest international airport. That title goes to ATL. ATL is an international airport. It is busier than LH
31 Cobra27 : Dream on Willie. Just wait and see
32 Irish251 : Not strictly true regarding Dublin. The secondary runway, 16/34, is 6,500 ft long and is pretty OK for most operations except for heavies departing o
33 Poitin : I am curious what the "international" pax count for LHR would be if they collapsed the counts for people going EU countries and hangers on like Switz
34 Poitin : Yes, the Piper Cub runway, 11/29 is 1,356 m long and can handle smaller aircraft, but anything the FR or EI uses would have to use 10/28 or 16/34, wh
35 RTFM : Not strictly true..... the following is a quote from a letter (published on the DfT website) written by the DfT in 2005 in response to a Freedom of I
36 P3Orion : Actually, in terms of aircraft operations, ORD is the world's busiest airport. And, when we are on Plan X with a trip, we land and depart RWY 09L.
37 Poitin : It can be considered a "verbal contract" which can be enforced in both US and British law, although difficult. And such a verbal statement would be u
38 RTFM : Err.... the reference I quoted from the letter starts off by quite explicitly stating '...there is no Cranford Agreement document.' The existence of
39 Post contains links and images Khobar : Or are you not trying to be funny? As an international airport, Atlanta is actually ranked...wow, Atlanta doesn't even make it into the top 30. For t
40 Planesarecool : Normally, yes, however at the moment, and for a few weeks to come, all departures are using 27L due to taxiway maintenance around the entrance to 27R
41 SailorOrion : MUC has the same layout as LHR has and of course operates both runways in mixed mode. They accomodate (slot coordination) 90 operations per hour, with
42 Irish251 : Plans for DUB provide for an additional runway, 10L/28R, replacing 11/29 and, at 3,110m, longer than the present 10/28. Planning permission was grant
43 RJ111 : They are using 27R for takeoffs again now but I think they are taxiing down 23/05.
44 Post contains links and images SJCRRPAX : " target=_blank>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World%2...affic I think you are the one trying to be funny You quote a list titled, "World's busiest air
45 Khobar : Would seem logical in a thread about international passenger traffic potentially being reduced at the most important hub for A380 operations. In the
46 Threepoint : And you see that the "world's busiest" title is interchangeable between the two, with each airport swapping places every couple years or so as of lat
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Willie Walsh: A380 Chances 'As Good As Ever' posted Tue Nov 14 2006 03:18:39 by WingedMigrator
What Livery Will The A380 Be In @ LHR? posted Tue May 16 2006 10:40:58 by Artist01
Update Of A380 Due At LHR. posted Sat Mar 11 2006 15:48:44 by Pogo
A380 Coming To LHR posted Thu Feb 23 2006 17:42:11 by Bells
Is A380 Coming To LHR Feb. 13? posted Thu Jan 12 2006 19:43:28 by SmithAir747
Is The A380 Coming To LHR posted Sat Nov 26 2005 10:10:02 by Cosec59
BA Fleet Renewal Not Imminent - Willie Walsh posted Fri Nov 25 2005 17:08:49 by VV701
A380 May Have Cost Airbus Too Much Ground. posted Wed Apr 13 2005 07:21:40 by BlackKnight
Iasc Confirms QF HKG-LHR Capacity Allocation posted Wed Aug 4 2004 05:57:02 by Sydscott
SIA Has A380 Brainstorming Session - LHR 1st Route posted Sun Sep 1 2002 09:44:46 by Singapore_Air