Airlines around the world are the primary customers and customers are suppose to be treated well and as the saying goes"customer is always right" but the case seem to be different with managers of Heathrow airport that is preparing to name and shame noisy airlines. I will strongly suggest the management think twice before making such moves; learn your lessons from Turkish airlines management that decided to ban lipsticks on flight attendants some weeks ago as there are many diplomatic ways of using the word "noisy" and the word "shame" is a bit too strong to use on customers.


http://flyingactive.com/content/170-...irlines-named-shamed-heathrow.html

Excellent idea.

Nothing wrong with naming airlines that break the airports operating rules and have been fined.

Here locally in Los Angeles, two airports (LGB and SNA) publish such info monthly including the case of LGB the dollar amounts of the fines that were levied.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): Nothing wrong with naming airlines that break the airports operating rules and have been fined.

In Aviation business image is everything, calling some airlines noisy can really have negative effects on the image of the airline and please can anyone show me a silent airliner?

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 2): In Aviation business image is everything, calling some airlines noisy can really have negative effects on the image of the airline and please can anyone show me a silent airliner?

And that negative PR hopefully encourage compliance to get off the list.

Pretty simply. Don't break the rules = no fines = no bad PR.

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 2): In Aviation business image is everything, calling some airlines noisy can really have negative effects on the image of the airline

Maybe they should comply with the noise limits, then.

-Mir

Well as an aviation enthusiast and an anti-NIMBY, I think the idea is stupid. Come on people; aren't aircraft quiet enough? A good reason for the failure of Concorde, was it's noise. I never really understood aviation enthusiasts on this forum that support this sort of stuff. Airplanes make noise, yet are quieter than ever, and people still complain. To me, it is just another way for LHR to fleece more money from it's operators. In the end, you and I will pay for it. Planes have reached a point where they are more than quiet enough. It is time we move forward with speed, rather than this constant liberal thinking of anti-noise and emissions. The more you all continue to support this thinking, the longer it will take for aviation to move to it's next step, and that is faster airplanes. I am tired of spending an entire day/night to reach international destinations, then to have to deal with the jet-lag, that goes with it. Folks, it is time to move on, rather than supporting this sort of archaic nonsense.

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 2): please can anyone show me a silent airliner?

Even balloons are not absolutely quite, so no. But that doesn't mean that airlines are not bound by environmental noise limits. Indeed some types of aircraft are banned at various airports around the world because they exceed acceptable noise levels. The intent is not to eradicate noise altogether but to ensure that airlines comply with the rules and to encourage the earlier adoption of quieter and more efficient aircraft so that LHR receives the go ahead to expand.

The linked item does not state that the airport owner will be going on prime-time radio and television to loudly condemn individual airlines. It simply states that they will collate information and publish a table every three months. While this table might be published on the airport's web site it is possible that copies will be circulated to the airlines themselves. This will enable them to compare their noise performance with their rivals. Given that an increasing number of people are concerned with environmental issues, the airlines that rank as the best performers will no doubt welcome objective evidence to sell themselves as having a low noise footprint.

[Edited 2013-05-30 20:34:31]

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5): Come on people; aren't aircraft quiet enough?

Having stood under an A380-800, a 747-8 and a 787-8 as they passed directly overhead, I am seriously impressed at how much quieter they are on approach than any other airplane (narrowbody or widebody).

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5): Come on people; aren't aircraft quiet enough?

Even more reason they should be staying within the noise limits.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5): To me, it is just another way for LHR to fleece more money from it's operators.

Putting airlines on a list isn't going to result in any more money for the airport.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5): It is time we move forward with speed, rather than this constant liberal thinking of anti-noise and emissions. The more you all continue to support this thinking, the longer it will take for aviation to move to it's next step, and that is faster airplanes.

It's not noise that's keeping faster airplanes from being developed, it's fuel costs.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 8): Putting airlines on a list isn't going to result in any more money for the airport.

Fines being imposed, sounds like a money maker to me.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 9): Fines being imposed, sounds like a money maker to me.

So you're suggesting that airlines should be able to break the noise limits with no consequence?

Keep in mind that airplanes are as quiet as they now in part because of such schemes that give financial incentive for airlines to operate quiet aircraft, and thus for manufacturers to make them.

-Mir

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5):

Wethere they show the names publicly or not they are still fining the airlines.

Quoting crownvic (Reply 9): Fines being imposed, sounds like a money maker to me.

Heathrow is not just imposing fines. They have also stated their plans to alter descents and to route flight paths as far as possible away from residential areas.

Fines are only imposed if an airline actually breaks the acceptable limit. These limits are set by the Minister responsible for aviation, in line with both EU directives and ICAO standards and not by the airport itself. The authority to raise fines stems from the Minister responsible for aviation and not the airport owner. According to LHR the monies raised from fines are

Quote: donated to various community projects through the Noise Fines Fund.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter): reparing to name and shame noisy airlines

A form of 'social engineering' I'm in favor of. If the 'shaming' was too silly, no one would care.

We'll now know who breaks the well published rules.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): Excellent idea. Nothing wrong with naming airlines that break the airports operating rules and have been fined. Here locally in Los Angeles, two airports (LGB and SNA) publish such info monthly including the case of LGB the dollar amounts of the fines that were levied.

That was my thought. Most other airports with noise laws publish the results. It never occurred to me LHR wouldn't. This should be public business.

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 2): In Aviation business image is everything

So airlines should attempt to not make the list.

Win-win. Airlines will work to not violate the noise rules and LHR will become quieter allowing more flights.   

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 6): It simply states that they will collate information and publish a table every three months.

  

Airlines could laugh it off if they feel like it. Now their customer reaction might be different...

If one is going to fine, the fines should be public information. Why not have some fun. Give the papers something to print four times a year...

Lightsaber

As someone who lives under the LHR flight path the worst problem with aircraft noise are all the old heavies flying out in the evening to the Far East and beyond.

The trouble is it is dark and unless you want to dig up Flightradar24 you don't know which airline it is up there making all the noise.

It's amazing how silent aircraft can be early in the morning, on after curfew hour departures and Bank Holidays. It can be done.

Quoting tioloko100 (Reply 2): please can anyone show me a silent airliner?

View Large View Medium

Photo © Fayaz Rasac



 

IM

Quoting babybus (Reply 14): As someone who lives under the LHR flight path the worst problem with aircraft noise are all the old heavies flying out in the evening to the Far East and beyond. The trouble is it is dark and unless you want to dig up Flightradar24 you don't know which airline it is up there making all the noise. It's amazing how silent aircraft can be early in the morning, on after curfew hour departures and Bank Holidays. It can be done.

Which aircraft/airlines are actually the noisiest?

General question what can pilots do to reduce noise?

If I owned an airline I'd buy some 707s specifically for LHR.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 16): General question what can pilots do to reduce noise?

The two major sources of aircraft noise are:
a) air passing over or compressed against the airframe or parts of the aircraft; and
b) the aircraft engine, including noise generated by the fan and the jet exhaust.

For type a, the noise will be at its loudest when flaps or landing gear is deployed, typically noticeable on landing. Type B will more noticeable on take off when the greatest thrust is deployed.

Pilots can reduce the noise on take off by reducing thrust once a safe height has been achieved, returning to normal thrust at a further distance and height. On approach pilots can adjust when they deploy flaps and lower the landing gear as well as reduce thrust where appropriate. Previously a stepped approach was common but a continuous descent approach is often used because it keeps aircraft higher longer (reducing noise impact on those below) and uses lower thrust settings (producing less noise). An additional benefit may be that it also reduces fuel burn.

There is also increasing use of Global Navigation Satellite Systems and management computers to reduce noise by developing more flexible approaches, including curved three dimensional curved flight paths that allow aircraft to avoid sensitive areas or to share the noise levels between multiple paths.

[Edited 2013-05-31 04:16:48]

Airline X is put on the noisy list. Airline Y isn't. Both X and Y fly to the same destination from LHR. Or, both fly from the same destination to LHR. During the planning stages of a vacation, people compare the price of flight using X or Y. If X is the cheapest, they fly X. Same applies to Y.

While a noisy list may cause shame, I doubt it will affect their bottom line. If LHR puts in a fine for noise, it *might* prompt airline X to either retrofit or fly to another London area airport.

[Edited 2013-05-31 04:54:18]

BA seem to have really embraced these noise regulations lately and done the NIMBYs a favour by being kind enough to approach the runway with one or two engines switched off. Hopefully Heathrow won't name and shame the airlines that leave bits of their aircraft all over the airfield.

Well I live some 20km to the West of Heathrow and get a fantastic view of the Westerly departures off 27R and, if the arrival pattern is right, Easterly arrivals "gliding" in over my pad onto 09L

Echoing babybus's comment (albeit to the West not East), the only departures that I ever think create a bit of a racket are the late night heavies, BA245/247, departures to South America and really only when they are using the Southampton 2F2G SID....a 744, full of fuel, cargo, pax and booze and needing to be at 3,000 12DME LON and 4,000 abeam Woodley (15DME LON), which demands a high power departure and climb

I find it rather spectacular, but can appreciate that the wider population might find it a bit of a disturbance. It makes a big difference when its a 777

Suspect when these flights are A350/787/77W/A380 operated we will barely hear a whisper

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter): Airlines around the world are the primary customers and customers are suppose to be treated well and as the saying goes"customer is always right" but the case seem to be different with managers of Heathrow airport that is preparing to name and shame noisy airlines. I will strongly suggest the management think twice before making such moves; learn your lessons from Turkish airlines management that decided to ban lipsticks on flight attendants some weeks ago as there are many diplomatic ways of using the word "noisy" and the word "shame" is a bit too strong to use on customers.

Sorry but I feel you have totally missed the point. LHR wants to expand but can't and noise and pollution are tangible measures used against it by regulators, governemnt and EU as to why it cant squeeze a few 100 more slots out of its 2 runways.

Thsi initiative is not about raising cash but about trying to get operators to do their part in the battle to reduce noise and pollution so the airport has even a slim chance of getting the OK for some slot growth.

New flight paths are helping somewhat with noise.
The new descent path being trialled (with a more rapid but constant rate of descent) is reducing both noise and fuel burn/pollution

This should all be applauded if it gets us more capacity

Another "approach" would be to yank the slots of carriers that are the offenders. Since noise and pollution are being regulated and LHR must comply, this would raise the awareness of the offending airlines.

Shaming and naming won't change habits, threatening the ability to operate into LHR would.

FFS How can an A320 be different whether it is in service with AF/BA/LH/A3/IB/SU/AZ or any of the other many airlines which operate them to LHR. Pathetic, purile faux environmentalism.

Quoting IMatAMS (Reply 15): IM

  

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 17): If I owned an airline I'd buy some 707s specifically for LHR.

IIRC, the noise rating of a 707 is 16. It must be hushkitted to get down to 8. Are aircraft that noisy allowed into LHR anymore? LHR does have a noise cap...

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 18): For type a, the noise will be at its loudest when flaps or landing gear is deployed, typically noticeable on landing. Type B will more noticeable on take off when the greatest thrust is deployed.

A (airframe noise) can be mitigated with new flap designs. Dramatically reducing noise (a la 787).
B (engine noise) is reduced with bypass ratio and 'chevrons.' Again, dramatically. This is why LHR assigns 'points' to airframes.

Engine noise unfortunately dominates.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 23): Another "approach" would be to yank the slots of carriers that are the offenders.

And then British airlines would lose their slots. Noise control is *not* in the bilaterals of most nations. That would spark a trade war.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 23): Shaming and naming won't change habits, threatening the ability to operate into LHR would.

It will affect ticket sales. That will change habits...

Lightsaber

Quoting aerorobnz (Reply 24): FFS How can an A320 be different whether it is in service with AF/BA/LH/A3/IB/SU/AZ or any of the other many airlines which operate them to LHR.

Depends on what profile the pilots use. There are ways to fly that are less noisy than others.

-Mir

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter): Airlines around the world are the primary customers and customers are suppose to be treated well and as the saying goes"customer is always right" but the case seem to be different with managers of Heathrow airport that is preparing to name and shame noisy airlines.

The OP is profoundly confused. Airlines aren't customers here. Quasi-governmental bodies are created, and public investment made in navigation/control, runways, and terminals, for the public good: the needs of PASSENGERS. The airlines may make use of the public investment (seeking profit) if they follow the rules, and that reasonably includes noise abatement.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 1): including the case of LGB the dollar amounts of the fines that were levied.

As a non-Californian who flew through LGB twice last week (one RT on USAirways and one RT on JetBlue) I find it so eccentric that I would never use it as a model for anything -- including noise abatement.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 25): Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 23): Another "approach" would be to yank the slots of carriers that are the offenders. And then British airlines would lose their slots. Noise control is *not* in the bi-laterals of most nations. That would spark a trade war.

So what if a British Airline loses their slots? Are you implying it's ok for the British to let their own airlines skirt the laws versus those that aren't British? Equal application of the law....

As for bi-laterals, those can be negotiated and often are. Regardless, local laws cannot be just dismissed because of national air service agreements.

Quoting IMatAMS (Reply 15):

Even then it wouldn't have been silent by any means. Aircraft will still make plenty of noise without the engines turning in flight.

i think the solution is clear. flaps up landings with engines off. and no lights either, as they can be distracting and hurt people's eyes.

what's insane to me is the people who BOUGHT A HOUSE NEAR AN AIRPORT are complaining about noise. maybe that's what should be fixed... only sell houses in those neighborhoods to airnetters and other people who aren't insane.

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 20): BA seem to have really embraced these noise regulations lately and done the NIMBYs a favour by being kind enough to approach the runway with one or two engines switched off. Hopefully Heathrow won't name and shame the airlines that leave bits of their aircraft all over the airfield.

That is not possible due to the requirements of an aircraft being able to power out of the approach in the event of a missed approach, sudden emergency on the ground requiring a go around, or any other such event.

Edit: Nevermind. It took me a minute to process that as sarcasm.

[Edited 2013-05-31 10:39:30]

Quoting upperdeck (Reply 20): BA seem to have really embraced these noise regulations lately and done the NIMBYs a favour by being kind enough to approach the runway with one or two engines switched off.

I do hope that's a joke.

This whole idea is silly. Large machines make noise. In the case of Heathrow the large machines making noise are airplanes. Airplanes that make Heathrow and the community surrounding Heathrow relevant. Who is complaining about the noise anyway. People living around the airport? Did they not know that airplanes flying overhead might be noisy? Unless they've been living in the area from the pre-Heathrow days they have nothing to complain about. They willing bought homes around an airport with full knowledge that airplanes would be flying into and out of that airport. And they likely got their homes I might ad for prices that were cheaper than what they would have paid were those homes not around an airport.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 29): So what if a British Airline loses their slots? Are you implying it's ok for the British to let their own airlines skirt the laws versus those that aren't British? Equal application of the law....

  

If you take away LHR slots from a foreign airline for noise, that violates the current bilateral (fines don't violate the bilateral). Therefore, the bilateral may be voided or amended per the government of the airline that just lost slots. Thus all British airlines (VS, BA) would lose rights to the offended nation if they so choose. The same goes with passport recognition. It could null not just the air service rights, but the full bilateral and thus becomes a WTO issues where Britain (the nation) must compensate the banned airline/nation for all losses.

I'm saying you proposed a 'solution' that creates a far bigger issue than it solves. For example, if AI were to be banned from LHR (or lost slots), then all BA flights to India from LHR would be banned (or the sum of British airlines flights to India would be reduced automatically to the sum of AI+9W LHR slot pairs as per India's choice) *and* Britain owes India compensation. Since BA and benefit the most from LHR-India flights (thanks to their connections), that would be a poor choice.

You're being far too heavy handed for today's trade environment. I strongly suggest reading "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" to gain a better understanding of today's trade environment. Also read the follow on book "The world is flat." Then after those two excellent books by Thomas L Freedman, switch to Bernstein's "A Splendid Exchange: How trade shaped the world."

Thus the best solution is to do small fines and publish a list of the offenders in a humorous fashion. I like this solution actually... And I'm big on airport growth! Diplomacy is often a series of small steps to broadcast what is coming to prevent a trade war.

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 29): So what if a British Airline loses their slots?

LHR would *only* take slots from BA and VS?!? That is all that would be allowed. By WTO rules, BA and VS must operate by the same (or stricter) rules of the foreign airlines. I hope you weren't proposing to punish them just because they have more staff in the greater London area... IAG could very quickly assign the slots to IB and that would start an interesting trend...

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 28): As a non-Californian who flew through LGB twice last week (one RT on USAirways and one RT on JetBlue) I find it so eccentric that I would never use it as a model for anything -- including noise abatement.

My favorite airport, but definitely not a model for other airports. The allowed flights are far too few to take LGW seriously as the restrictions are so tight that 'lulls in traffic' allow them to skip using jetways...


Lightsaber

Quoting tockeyhockey (Reply 31): i think the solution is clear. flaps up landings with engines off. and no lights either, as they can be distracting and hurt people's eyes

Not quite. The solution is a giant conveyor belt  

signol

Don't increase the arrival rate, via improved ATC or adding a runway. Start publicly calling out your customers who are all flying Stage III or better aircraft now.

Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, and other hubs will make money off of this in the long run.

Quoting SPREE34 (Reply 37): Don't increase the arrival rate, via improved ATC or adding a runway. Start publicly calling out your customers who are all flying Stage III or better aircraft now. Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris, and other hubs will make money off of this in the long run.

Nothing like OD traffic and an attractive city! London like New-York is unbeatable in that aspect! As shown by the price paid for landing slots. That argument keeps on being repeated but to be honest keeps on being proven to be incorrect.

LHR will remain an attractive airport, despite all the constraints including maybe in the future noise abatement rules...

Quoting babybus (Reply 14): As someone who lives under the LHR flight path the worst problem with aircraft noise are all the old heavies flying out in the evening to the Far East and beyond. The trouble is it is dark and unless you want to dig up Flightradar24 you don't know which airline it is up there making all the noise.

Living there in the quiet countryside, it must have been a real shock when jets started flying over, what, 55 years ago?

Quoting crownvic (Reply 5): Well as an aviation enthusiast and an anti-NIMBY, I think the idea is stupid. Come on people; aren't aircraft quiet enough? A good reason for the failure of Concorde, was it's noise. I never really understood aviation enthusiasts on this forum that support this sort of stuff. Airplanes make noise, yet are quieter than ever, and people still complain. To me, it is just another way for LHR to fleece more money from it's operators. In the end, you and I will pay for it. Planes have reached a point where they are more than quiet enough. It is time we move forward with speed, rather than this constant liberal thinking of anti-noise and emissions. The more you all continue to support this thinking, the longer it will take for aviation to move to it's next step, and that is faster airplanes. I am tired of spending an entire day/night to reach international destinations, then to have to deal with the jet-lag, that goes with it. Folks, it is time to move on, rather than supporting this sort of archaic nonsense.

Since so many people reply to complaints about the TSA with the statement "then don't fly," then the same can be said about airlines and airports. If you don't like the noise rules, don't fly there in the first place. It's a two-way street.

LHR...trying its best to make itself irrelevant.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter): and as the saying goes"customer is always right"

An archaic cliché from the 1950s. The customer is very much NOT always right....far from it in many cases.

Maybe Im missing something, but who is this really aimed at? If we are talking 744's, do they really want to piss off their biggest resident customer? Actually both of them...

The only real offender I can think of in regular service today is the MD80 series and the only operator of those to LHR on a regular basis is SK, and their days are numbered if they even come to LHR at all these days?

This isnt the days of Concorde, Conway's, Spey's, Soloviev's, Kuznetsov's & JT3's, even the JT8 is almost gone.

Whether one likes it or not there are noise limits at most airports. At Heathrow there are different limits for different times of the day. Night time (11:30 pm to 06:00 am is the most stringent (87dB - but see below). The shoulder periods, 11:00 pm to 11:30 pm and 06:00 am to 07:00 am are slightly less stringent (89dB). Day time limits (07:00 am to 11:00 pm) are more relaxed (94dB).

Airlines breaking these limits are fined. Any fines are distributed to local community projects. So the organisation imposing the fines, Heathrow Airport Ltd, does not benefit financially from them. Monies received are immediately transferred into what is known as the Noise Fines Fund. This creates an interesting dilemma for local communities. They may not like the noise of aircraft but do benefit financially from it!

When any other organisation or any person breaks rules or laws their misdemeanour or offence and the resulting fine or other punishment becomes public knowledge. Many here have suggested that this should not apply to airlines breaking the noise regulations at Heathrow. However I do not believe that any have given a coherent reason why airlines should be treated differently to all other offenders including, for example, those creating a public noise nuisance by some other means. So, for example, there are UK laws limiting the amount of noise made by individual road vehicles and the identity of offenders will enter the public domain.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 16): General question what can pilots do to reduce noise?

Noise on take-off is obviously more of a problem than noise on landing. At Heathrow there are ten noise monitors that are positioned 6.5 kms from the start-of-roll and under the most used flight paths. So the regulations and location of the monitors encourages pilots to gain height quickly and then reduce power before nearing the monitors.

Quoting vinniewinnie (Reply 16): Which aircraft/airlines are actually the noisiest?

The American FAA were the first to take action over aircraft noise back in the 1960s. They produced the Stage 3 concept that was discussed here:

Stage 3 Noise (by Warreng24 Nov 27 2005 in Civil Aviation)

some years back. But a rule of thumb is that older aircraft types such as the 1-11, DC-9 AND 727 are noisier than more modern types

I've read the technical data people have posted here. Extremely relevant. However....LHR has been in existence since 1929. Are there still people living in the area that were there prior to that time?
Don't like noise? Move to the country. Really don't like noise? Check google maps and find the location of nearby airports. Imagine a line that extends beyond any runway. Does your house come close to that line? Yes? Guess what...there will be noise. LHR runs E/W ...buy N/S. Are people really this stupid? Where do they come from and why do they keep sending them here?

I'm all for making things more efficient, but as someone else posted...big machines make big noise.

Quoting tioloko100 (Thread starter): learn your lessons from Turkish airlines management that decided to ban lipsticks on flight attendants some weeks ago as

Don't twist it into what it wasn't, they only banned red lipstick all other natural and close to natural shades of lipstick were allowed to remain.

Quoting NOWINYOW (Reply 45): Imagine a line that extends beyond any runway. Does your house come close to that line? Yes? Guess what...there will be noise. LHR runs E/W ...buy N/S.

Too simplistic. Go and check the SIDs for LHR. Many involve early turns North and South. Now you and I may be able to access and understand a SID chart, but Joe public can't

I live 20k's the West of LHR and sometimes at night, with the wind in the right direction I can hear the take off roll of a heavy heading East! Bother me? Not at all, but I can understand how it could be an issue for others.

Anyone who honestly thinks this will cause airlines to engage in quieter operations is seriously deluded.

A majority of the industry operates on lowest price first, and convenience and service second. Noise to external factors is not a factor in the equation, with the exception of triggering financial repercussions.

Quoting 707lvr (Reply 39): Living there in the quiet countryside, it must have been a real shock when jets started flying over, what, 55 years ago?

That's what always kills me... People move into a neighborhood next to a well established airport and then complain about the noise.