Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25): The question is whether it makes sense to spend millions on equipment that may sometimes not even be needed for the entire winter.

You can compare it with an insurance. You pay your whole life just in case your house goes on fire. How big is the chance that it actually happens? Very small, but it can happen! You pay your whole life just in case you get very ill. How big is the chance that it actually happens? Small, but it can happen! So if you're an airport, yes, you have to spend some good money on proper equipment and proper trained staff. How big is the chance that you need it EVERY winter? Small in countries like the UK and the Netherlands, BUT IT CAN HAPPEN!  

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25): The question is whether it makes sense to spend millions on equipment that may sometimes not even be needed for the entire winter.

That equipment is cheap compared to the costs involved with shutting down airports due to a dusting of snow
It is Europe, the region where waiting for things is a national past time (with the possible exception of Switzerland and Germany). It just seems to be something accepted. From my understanding it is not just the airports that go haywire when it snows, roads, trains and other businesses. It seems to be an accepted part of life there. While they do not get much snow, it happens but many still do not have any way of coping with a few cm of snow, not sure if that is funny or pathetic.

Quoting [email protected] (Reply 19): Well Stockholm has had its fair share of problems today. Basically all public transport have shut down. Stockholm - Arlanda and Bromma airports have been highly affected with lots of cancelled flights.

Exactly - even traditionally 'snowy' airports in the world, with good investment in equipment and training have issues when it snows.

And people seem to forget the big snow at LHR 2 years ago wasn't just unprecedented, it was relentless. Even critics at the time admitted that no matter how many snow ploughs LHR had they would no way have been able to clear both runways and all major taxi ways to maintain operation.

And the issue isn't just snow, it's also ice, and visibility. How can you expect to maintain normal operation at an airport when half of arriving flights have been forced to divert to other airports.

Yes, the UK needs to wake up to the fact that snow is probably going to be more of a permanent fixture during our winters, but there is a limit to what can be achieved.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25): The question is whether it makes sense to spend millions on equipment that may sometimes not even be needed for the entire winter.

By that logic why invest in all the airport fire engines?

If the airport is fortunate enough then that equipment would be used even less than the snowploughs.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 30): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):The question is whether it makes sense to spend millions on equipment that may sometimes not even be needed for the entire winter.By that logic why invest in all the airport fire engines? If the airport is fortunate enough then that equipment would be used even less than the snowploughs.

The difference is that fire engines are a statutory requirement. the flights/size of planes an airport can accept are entirley dependent on the scale of the fire foghting ability.

Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 31):

Wasn't concerned with whether or not they are a statutory requirement. Point is the fire engines are there to cope with a situation which happens infrequently. Whereas you could make the argument that snowfall at an airport can be predicted for certain periods. It may not happen but if it does then it is more likely to happen during the Dec-Feb period.

By comparison an accident at an airport requiring the fire services can never be predicted until it happens. There is no period at an airport where accidents are more likely compared to other times of the year. If that is not the case then feel free to correct me.

Hope that clarifies the point  

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 20): Do they get snow at least once year or is really a rare event?

According to this site:

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=winter-history;sess=

"I am going to summarise the past 20 years. The late 80s saw little snowfall, ranging from generally no snowfall : 1988-90 (a couple of terrible winters, like that of 1998-00, correlation there) to 12 inches (Scotland, late November 1985) the early 90s were different.

"1990-91 saw 8 inches of snow in the Midlands in early December 1990, with 2 foot drifts in Derbyshire. In early January there was 1 foot of snowfall in Northern Scotland. In mid February there was general snowfall, with Bingley in Yorkshire seeing a whopping 20 inches!

"1991-93 saw little or no snowfall though, a disappointment.

"1993-96 weren't so bad though, with falls of up to 40cm in Leeds (January 25th 1995 I remember 1995 very well, it was a good year for snow, the coldest temperature since records began recorded in Braemar, Scotland) In 1993 there was a white Christmas in South Wales (yippee!) and Wessex. Before that, there was some snow for Scotland and Wales (6 inches 20th-24th December) and 4-8 inches of snow in late November for the Eastern spine of the UK. The IOW (Isle of Wight) to Lincolnshire saw 6 inches in early January. Mid February (1994) saw 4 inches in Northern England. Late February had 1ft of snow in Eastern Scotland. 1994-95 saw many falls of up to 40cm throughout the UK. I remember walking home from school in early march 1995 with a blizzard commensing, 15cm in total, we were off school for a week! As I said above, Leeds saw 40cm of snow in 3 hours in late January 1995! Late March also saw snow for the Northern half of England, 35cm widely here. 1995-96 saw snow on Christmas Eve/ Day in Scotland and the North East, with 35cm falling in the Shetlands. The end of January (South East) and early February (North West: Lancashire 13cm, 2 foot drifts) and also South West Scotland seeing some aswell. Mid February saw some more in the South, before some more to end the season in mid March (East).

1997-00, hardly any snow, 1999-00 virtually snow-less, so not a very good end to the millennium, in terms of snowfall, anyway."

Note the virtual absence of any mention of the southeast / London in the above.

My personal recollection is that until 2009 "disruptive" snow fell in the London area and home counties (where I live) once every eleven years or so. (The situstion in east Kent, the closest point in the UK to continental Europe, was significantly worse.) And I am old enough to remember the severe winters of 1947-48 and 1963-64.

However since 2009 we have had a series of snowy winters in soth east England. Until this recent spate of bad winters I cannot recall any consecutive or near consecutive winters with disruptive snow at Heathrow or in the London area.

Quoting sankaps (Reply 22): LHR operates as 99% capacity in normal weather.

At 99 per cent of overall capacity it is actually operatring at 100 per cent of capacity apart from late Satrurday and early Sunday. So we sometimes run into diversions from LHR when snow (or other bad weather) disrupts flights elsewhere. A wave of delayed flightsreaches LHR mixed with all the on-time flights. Holds become excessively long. Diversions occur because of low fuel situation. Yet there is little in the weather at LHR to suggest why this should happen. So we all get the opportunity to moan that are flights were diverted because of the weather when any airport other than LHR would surely have been operating totally normally.      

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 30): By that logic why invest in all the airport fire engines? If the airport is fortunate enough then that equipment would be used even less than the snowploughs.

I think this is a false analogy... fire engines are there in sufficient quantities for incidents / accidents involving maybe one or two aircraft, or one terminal max. Snow impacts ALL aircraft and ALL terminals, gates, runways, ramps, etc. To be prepared to handle this load would require an entire airfield of snow-removal equipment, much more equipment than the fire engines that are at Heathrow today. At some point, it just is not possible, financially or physically. Only solution for Heathrow would be to expand to a Dallas-like airport with expansive open areas, 9 active runways, and maybe 50% utilzation.

I've been reading this thread and it does amaze me somewhat the the Airport Authority doesn't look at snow as part of their business model and the expenses it brings when little or nothing is done. Are there not representatives from the airlines pushing back on this issue, demanding something being done to make LHR more "operational" when snow falls?

No doubt there is some financial risk for purchasing snow removal and deicing equipment, but look at the cost when it actually snows, even if it's a few CM's.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 33): Until this recent spate of bad winters I cannot recall any consecutive or near consecutive winters with disruptive snow at Heathrow or in the London area.

Living near Chicago our winters have become more milder. However, ORD still plans and holds several winter snow op meetings between the City, FAA, Airlines and Contractors to discuss and plan for events. Now, we might never see the big ones, but not planning (and in some ways this is how I see BAA's mindset) is just admitting they can't plan for or desire to handle it. It's an image thing.....

Also, why bring in consultants when LHR is probably a member of ACI and could gather far more practical and real life experienced folks in versus desk jockeys.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 35): Living near Chicago our winters have become more milder. However, ORD still plans and holds several winter snow op meetings between the City, FAA, Airlines and Contractors to discuss and plan for events. Now, we might never see the big ones, but not planning (and in some ways this is how I see BAA's mindset) is just admitting they can't plan for or desire to handle it. It's an image thing.....

For many years my brother-in-law lived in Chicago or, to be precise, Elmhurst. Please be assured that there is no comparison between the continental climate there and the maritime climate here in the UK. In northwest Scotland, for example there is a tropical garden at Inverewe:

http://www.insiders-scotland-guide.com/ScotlandInverewegarden.html

I doubt that many if any of the plants there would survive a Chicago winter, even like those recently experienced. As I have already said, in my memory over 60 plus years until recently we have seen disruptive snow in the London area once every eleven years or so. Holding "several winter op snow meetings" when disruptive snow was so uncommon would have been problematic. Some of the participants would likely not have actually experienced such an event.

Very often changes in the USA climate are mirrored by the exact opposite here in the UK. So, while many parts of the east of the USA experienced drought conditions last summer the UK had its wettest summer in living memory. Now, for the first time in living memory, the UK has been experiencing "disruptive" snow in consecutive years while the winter climate in Chicago has been warmer. Perhaps in a few years ORD will have given up on its winter snow op meetings that by then will be a regular feature at LHR. Or perhaps things will have reverted to "normal". Who knows?

You have have all the equipment you need but unfortunately if your staff can't get to LHR the equipment will stay still.

The main point is England is bad at snow, roads close, trains stop and airport staff can't get to work. Even this morning at 5am it was -5 the roads had not been gritted and the drive to LHR was fun.

LHR will have 2 Pads for remote deicing (can't call them Pans anymore), Aircraft will be pushed back onto the taxiway overnight to allow stands to be cleared of snow using new equipment.

Quoting keegd76 (Reply 30): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25): The question is whether it makes sense to spend millions on equipment that may sometimes not even be needed for the entire winter. By that logic why invest in all the airport fire engines? If the airport is fortunate enough then that equipment would be used even less than the snowploughs.

There's a big difference. With fire engines you're talking about saving passengers' lives. Spending millions on additional snow removal equipment at an airport like LHR or AMS that gets little snow and thus will rarely be used is a question of avoiding possibly a few days of cancellations and related delays and disruption every 2 or 3 years. At some point you have to decide how much you can justify investing in that kind of "insurance" as opposed to spending the money on improving terminal facilities etc. that will benefit a much larger number of passengers.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 38): AMS that gets little snow

Amsterdam gets plenty of snow every winter (more than most English airfields at any rate) and has way more runways to vary traffic flows than any UK airport.

That said this it's not good money spent/investment argument used by UK Operating authorities is no longer good enough.

The Five major airports LHR/LGW/STN/MAN and BHX in England and EDI/GLA SHOULD have adequate equipment to remain operable in 90% of potential snowclo occasions period.

That includes reserves of de-icer from October- April

Plows and blowers with adequate back up vehicles at all these airports.

[Edited 2012-12-07 12:26:20]

Quoting Lofty (Reply 37): The main point is England is bad at snow, roads close, trains stop and airport staff can't get to work. Even this morning at 5am it was -5 the roads had not been gritted and the drive to LHR was fun.

The UK population in general have little idea how to deal with snow or adequately prepare their vehicles - In fact our highway code isn't even supportive !

Use of wheel chains and/or studded tyres can actually lead to violations of road regulations,(Use of these damages paved road surfaces).

The alternative winter tyres (non studded) are expensive to buy and wear very quickly on paved roads.
Most UK drivers wouldn't pay for them or have storage for a second set of drums either.
Through these can be very helpful in icing conditions and we certainly have plenty of these episodes every winter.

The problem is with mean temperatures rarely falling much below 0 -5° C leading to rapid snow fall and equally rapid thaw.
This leads to planning issues for the individual - Again winter tyres would help through.

Many other countries even our neighbours in the Benelux countries experience much lower temperatures and for prolonged time periods compared to much of the UK (Scotland parts of Wales and eastern Kent excepted) and in these countries use of winter tyres is far more common.

As for rail well the unique Southern third and LUL fourth rails do ice (not something many other countries have to worry about) and covering something like 1/3 of the network this ain't changing any time soon.
In other parts of the country the now old Pacers (Buses on rails) are too light and have traction issues however most newer generation vehicles do have adequate traction these days

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 39): The Five major airports LHR/LGW/STN/MAN and BHX in England and EDI/GLA SHOULD have adequate equipment to remain operable in 90% of potential snowclo occasions period.

I think that is going to be really difficult to achieve at busy single runway airports (and the UK has more than its fair share of those). LHR & MAN are really the only two busy airports that have the "luxury" of two runways (one open, one being ploughed) but while ploughing movements at LHR must be reduced by 50%.

Quoting BasilFawlty (Reply 17): When it comes to snow AMS is almost as bad as LHR due to the reason mentioned earlier in this topic:

Actually my worst snow experience ever was at AMS, not at a London area airport, surprising considering they have almost infinitely more runways than any UK airport   (I also met pax at EDI this week who had been delayed 4 hours out of AMS by snow).

I also can't see how anyone expects the world's busiest single runway airport (LGW) to operate delay free when it is snowing - it seems to me that there will automatically be problems however well your equipment and staff are prepared.

Quoting Senchingo (Reply 23): They even offer jobs to local farmers equipping their trucks with snow shovels (?), training them for the apron driving license and sending them out to the runways and aprons clearing the mess.

And I´m pretty sure that this is the smartest solution since the snowy season is when farmers have little else to do and they certainly are screened to be allowed on secure grounds of the airport.
This allowes for a huge back-up in manpower / "anti-snow machinery" at relatively low cost.
Farmers are paid for stand-by (and active) times and maintenance/purchasing expenses.
The airport does not need to increase the workforce level just for a short period.

So, going back to LHR I don´t see a valid reason to shut down the airport entirely for an extended period (more than a day at max).
Operations certainly will be affected during heavy snow and a - probably large - number of flights need to be delayed/cancelled.
But that will happen everywhere since at low visibility separation of flights must be increased and clearing runways/taxiways/tarmacs takes some time.
Just closing down entirely for a longer period is unacceptable.

After all it is common knowledge how to tackle snow in western Europe.
What´s missing is the willingness to take approbiate action together with proper planning in good time at most places (and that´s by far not limited to the UK or airports in general ! )

This this the REAL reason the current government is against a third runway at LHR, all that extra snow to clear?  

What is interesting is DUS and FRA was closed yesterday due snow. The reason being they run out of stands! At one point it was planned that FRA would stay closed until 2200Z last night.

With CPH and HAM very close to closing yesterday and AMS already having had problems last week, the question is are we seeing heavier snow than in the past. OR to use a UK saying "its the wrong type of snow"

Just a thought,

Shouldn't the government step in to regulate and ensure that all major airports in the UK has proper and adequate snow clearing resources to ensure 'minimal disruption to flights' during snowy weather?

Regards
Triple7X

Quoting Triple7X (Reply 45): Shouldn't the government step in to regulate and ensure that all major airports in the UK has proper and adequate snow clearing resources to ensure 'minimal disruption to flights' during snowy weather?

It would certainly help to establish minimum performance targets in the concession contracts - including penalties for not achieving them.

It would also help if the EU changed its current regulations to make airports pay the compensations to stranded pax in these cases - during the last snow chaos winters and volcano eruptions, airlines have had to foot the bill.