|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:48 +0100 (BST), lid (Paul
Cummins) wrote: In article , (Bruce) wrote: *From:* Bruce *Date:* Tue, 08 Jun 2010 13:16:03 +0100 On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:02 +0100 (BST), lid (Paul Cummins) wrote: In article , (CJB) wrote: The letter sent to residents to confirm the end of BAA's buy-up, also reveals that BAA is still considering applying for planning permission for a third runway. Why don't they just reinstate the third runway that currently exists? Because its clearances have been infringed by new building. Because it crosses the two east-west runways (09-27L and 09-27R) and using it would mean that those two runways would have to be closed. Next question? OK - why were the clearances on runways 3,4,5 and 6 (yes, Heathrow was designed for 6 runways!) been allowed to be either built on or infringed, without consideration of the future implications. Because those runways would have been too short for modern airliners. The "future implication" was that they were not needed, and they still aren't, and never will be, unless the Laws of Physics are changed. Also, you are being deliberately misleading by suggesting that modern Heathrow could have had six runways, because only a maximum of two parallel runways could ever have been in use at any one time. So whichever way the wind blew, the design allowed for only two runways to operate. And why have successive owners done this, when they must have had a clue of the implications! They did it precisely because they *did* understand the implications, which is clearly not something that you could ever claim. Please don't ask any more stupid questions. However, in the unlikely event that you want to ask an intelligent question, go ahead. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
In message , at 14:57:39 on
Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Bruce remarked: Also, you are being deliberately misleading by suggesting that modern Heathrow could have had six runways, because only a maximum of two parallel runways could ever have been in use at any one time. So whichever way the wind blew, the design allowed for only two runways to operate. And the two they are left with are the pair best aligned with the prevailing winds. -- Roland Perry |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
In message
.homeip.net, at 16:08:00 on Tue, 8 Jun 2010, Paul Cummins remarked: It would have been far better to have accepted this in the 1960's and 70's and reclaimed enough land in the Thames estuary to build a new London International Airport, as indeed we did in Hong Kong to replace Kai Tak. That sounds curiously like the plan to build Maplin Airport (whose only tangible legacy seems to be an electronics company that latched on to the name in case it became world famous). After much debate they moved the concept to Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway and doing quite nicely thank you. -- Roland Perry |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On 08/06/2010 19:16, Roland Perry wrote:
Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway So what's Gatwick? |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
Basil Jet wrote on 09 June 2010
00:16:41 ... On 08/06/2010 19:16, Roland Perry wrote: Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway So what's Gatwick? Redhill Aerodrome's 4th runway. -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
In message , at 00:16:41 on
Wed, 9 Jun 2010, Basil Jet remarked: Stansted, which is in effect Heathrow's third runway So what's Gatwick? London's Second airport, which just grew there by accident. Stansted, being the official "Third airport" was the result of extensive public enquiries etc, to satisfy the need for more capacity for London. Just like the third runway at Heathrow is/was at the moment. -- Roland Perry |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On 8 June, 14:57, Bruce wrote:
Please don't ask any more stupid questions. *However, in the unlikely event that you want to ask an intelligent question, go ahead.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have a question, or several. Why was Heathrow designed like that, with six runways crossing each other in a sort of Star of David shape? They obviously wouldn't have been able to use all of them at the same time, was it intended that they would use two parallel ones at any one time depending on the direction of the wind? Why were only three of these runways ever built? When, and why did the third runway close? What are the numbers and letters at the ends of runways? The letter always seems to be 'L' or 'R'; the only thing I can think of is left and right, but that would depend on which direction you were facing. Is there any significance to the numbers, or are they just assigned the next free number? EWR seems to have similar numbers to LGW and LHR, so I assume it must be an international thing. Why do airports and ex airports often seem to have been built in clusters fairly close together. Heston, Heathrow and Northolt for example or Waddon and Beddington (originally separated by just a road and later merged to form Croydon), Kenley, Redhill, Biggin Hill and even Gatwick not too far away. Again, the same thing seems to have been the case in and around New York, Floyd Bennett Field was only just across the bay from JFK, and Flushing was right next to LaGuardia. I would have thould that they'd want to keep airports well out of each others way. Indeed, this was one of the reasons given for not re-opening Flushing, along with the fact that the runway's sinking into the swamp. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
wrote in message
On 8 June, 14:57, Bruce wrote: Please don't ask any more stupid questions. However, in the unlikely event that you want to ask an intelligent question, go ahead.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have a question, or several. Why was Heathrow designed like that, with six runways crossing each other in a sort of Star of David shape? They obviously wouldn't have been able to use all of them at the same time, was it intended that they would use two parallel ones at any one time depending on the direction of the wind? Why were only three of these runways ever built? When, and why did the third runway close? What are the numbers and letters at the ends of runways? The letter always seems to be 'L' or 'R'; the only thing I can think of is left and right, but that would depend on which direction you were facing. Is there any significance to the numbers, or are they just assigned the next free number? EWR seems to have similar numbers to LGW and LHR, so I assume it must be an international thing. Slow piston-engined planes are much more affected by wind than jets, hence the need to have short runways facing in three different directions. That was the normal layout in the 1940s, when Heathrow was designed. All six runways were built, but when jets arrived, three were closed, leaving space for a much larger central terminal complex. You can still make out vestiges of the old runways in aerial shots of Heathrow (eg, one ran under what is now terminal 3's remote pier). The two east/west runways were lengthened for the jets, which have much higher take-off and landing speeds. Runway 23 finally closed in 2005, but was seldom used in the last few years before then. It was only used when there were strong cross winds. It's now mainly used as a taxiway, though the southern end is also used for T4 stands. L and R do indeed mean the left and right-hand parallel runways of a pair (the few triple parallel runways denote the central one with a C). The number is the magnetic compass heading. Thus, 27L is also 09R, and 27R is also 09L. These are, of course, east-west runways, which are the typical direction in the UK because of the prevailing winds (you rarely see a north-south runway here). The numbers are occasionally revised as the magnetic compass drifts. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
wrote in message ... On 8 June, 14:57, Bruce wrote: Please don't ask any more stupid questions. However, in the unlikely event that you want to ask an intelligent question, go ahead.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - I have a question, or several. Why was Heathrow designed like that, with six runways crossing each other in a sort of Star of David shape? They obviously wouldn't have been able to use all of them at the same time, was it intended that they would use two parallel ones at any one time depending on the direction of the wind? I thinks it's to do with early aircraft only being to take off safely within about 30 degrees of a headwind. I believe most wartime airfields started by marking out three sides of a triangle, as buildings developed around about the basic triangle would remain in position even if the runways were extended for heavier aircraft. As aircraft were developed the need to take off 'very nearly into the wind' reduced, so the number of runway directions needed at any given site would reduce, and IMO you can see this on aerial views of many RAF airfields, where they now use only one main runway, and others have gone out of use. Why were only three of these runways ever built? When, and why did the third runway close? I took off from Heathrow in a NNE direction shortly before closure of the third runway, about 2001 - but everyone reckons it was very rare to use it by then. But I think there was a short period when Heathrow did have six runways. Basically threee pairs though as you cannot feasibly use more than a parallel pair together? As you'll know nowadays there are many airports that operate with one runway (albeit to/from either direction). What are the numbers and letters at the ends of runways? The letter always seems to be 'L' or 'R'; the only thing I can think of is left and right, but that would depend on which direction you were facing. Is there any significance to the numbers, or are they just assigned the next free number? EWR seems to have similar numbers to LGW and LHR, so I assume it must be an international thing. Compass direction, with the 3rd number left off. So Heathrow's current runways are 09 L and R if approaching from the west, and 27 L and R if approaching from the east. Why do airports and ex airports often seem to have been built in clusters fairly close together. Heston, Heathrow and Northolt for example or Waddon and Beddington (originally separated by just a road and later merged to form Croydon), Kenley, Redhill, Biggin Hill and even Gatwick not too far away. One airfield and a few satellites. You would have all the domestic and maintenance done at the main airfield, but if you had more aircraft than you could scramble from your single runway, you could disperse a squadron or two a couple of fields away and then there'd be more room for take off en masse, and also somewhere else to land if you came back and found your main base bombed to bits. Paul |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On 11 June, 14:05, "Recliner" wrote:
All six runways were built, but when jets arrived, three were closed, leaving space for a much larger central terminal complex. You can still make out vestiges of the old runways in aerial shots of Heathrow (eg, one ran under what is now terminal 3's remote pier). The two east/west runways were lengthened for the jets, which have much higher take-off and landing speeds. Runway 23 finally closed in 2005, but was seldom used in the last few years before then. It was only used when there were strong cross winds. It's now mainly used as a taxiway, though the southern end is also used for T4 stands. L and R do indeed mean the left and right-hand parallel runways of a pair (the few triple parallel runways denote the central one with a C). The number is the magnetic compass heading. Thus, 27L is also 09R, and 27R is also 09L. These are, of course, east-west runways, which are the typical direction in the UK because of the prevailing winds (you rarely see a north-south runway here). *The numbers are occasionally revised as the magnetic compass drifts. That all makes sense, but when I look at Gatwick something confuses me. It seems to have a second runway, 08L and 26R, to the North of the main one. I thought Gatwick only had one runway. This one is rather short, and the markings on it are slightly different to those on the main runway. What is this used for? |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
"tim...." wrote in message ... All six were built. Only three of them survived (as runways) into the 70's but the others are still there as taxiways. The third runway ceased to be used in about the late 70s, probably because it wasn't long enough for modern planes Not so, it might have been out of regular use but I took off from it in about 2001 on a flight to Glasgow or Edinburgh, so it was long enough for a 757. I can date this because my job that required regular flights to Scotland was from early 2000 to early 2003. Since mentioning this in an earlier post I've done a bit of googling and I now reckon the former runway 23/05 although regularly closed for long periods by means of 'notices to airmen' (Notams); it was not reported permanently closed by BAA until some time after 2003, possibly as late as 2005. Paul |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:17:45 +0100, Paul Scott
wrote: "tim...." wrote in message ... The third runway ceased to be used in about the late 70s, probably because it wasn't long enough for modern planes Not so, it might have been out of regular use but I took off from it in about 2001 on a flight to Glasgow or Edinburgh, so it was long enough for a 757. I can date this because my job that required regular flights to Scotland was from early 2000 to early 2003. FSVO modern. If what I was once told about Oslo's old airport (Fornebu) is true, 757s were able to operate from shorter runways than the Tridents they replaced. So the 757s may have been one of relatively few jet types that would fit on Heathrow's short runway, and Tridents may not have been. Colin McKenzie -- No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking. Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 22:25:06 +0100, "Colin McKenzie"
wrote: On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 17:17:45 +0100, Paul Scott wrote: "tim...." wrote in message ... The third runway ceased to be used in about the late 70s, probably because it wasn't long enough for modern planes Not so, it might have been out of regular use but I took off from it in about 2001 on a flight to Glasgow or Edinburgh, so it was long enough for a 757. I can date this because my job that required regular flights to Scotland was from early 2000 to early 2003. FSVO modern. If what I was once told about Oslo's old airport (Fornebu) is true, 757s were able to operate from shorter runways than the Tridents they replaced. So the 757s may have been one of relatively few jet types that would fit on Heathrow's short runway, and Tridents may not have been. The biggest problem with the short runway was that there was no parallel runway. Not only did take-offs and landings have to use the one runway, but they had to be in the same direction. It is normal practice to both take off and land into the wind. This reduces the length of runway needed, or increases the safety factor. With the old third runway 05/23, take off had to be into the wind as it is more safety-critical than landing; if a landing pilot realises he is landing too fast, or touches down too far along the runway, he can always take off again and go around. There are no such second chances for take-offs. ;-) The fact that 05/23 was only about half the length of the two 09/27 runways was also a very restricting factor: 09L/27R: 3902m x 50m 09R/27L: 3658m x 45m 23: 1962m x 45m In its final years, 05/23 was only used in one direction in order to spare the densely populated suburbs of Harlington, Hayes and Greenford from take-off noise, so it became runway 23. When added to its very short length, the fact that there was no parallel runway to allow simultaneous take-offs and landings, and the inadequacy of the taxiways to serve it properly, this was the final blow for the third runway and it was taken out of use. As Paul Scott correctly says, it was some years before this was officially made permanent. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
"Bruce" wrote in message
On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:33:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: That all makes sense, but when I look at Gatwick something confuses me. It seems to have a second runway, 08L and 26R, to the North of the main one. I thought Gatwick only had one runway. This one is rather short, and the markings on it are slightly different to those on the main runway. What is this used for? Gatwick has a taxiway that is parallel to the main runway. However, it can be used as an emergency runway if the main runway is out of action for any reason. It is not used as a runway under any other circumstances. In particular, it cannot be used as a second runway because there would be no proper taxiways and stop bars and all the other essential features an airport needs to support two runways. It is constructed to full runway (rather than taxiway) standards including width, pavement strength and lighting, and has its own sets of approach lights and VASIs (visual approach slope indicators). Some years ago, I was on a BA 737 that was attempting to land at LGW 08L on a stormy night, as 08R was closed for overnight maintenance. The pilot warned that it didn't have the same level of guidance systems as the normal runway, so he wasn't confident that he'd be able to land. I assume it lacked ILS then, and perhaps still does. And, indeed, when we emerged from the clouds, the plane wasn't lined up properly, so he had to abort the landing, and decided that the clouds were too low to make another attempt. He duly diverted to LHR, which would have been good news for me except that my car was parked at LGW. It took ages for the bus to get the pax back to Gatwick, and it must have been about three hours after our Heathrow landing before I drove past it again on my way home. In contrast, I have landed on LGW 26L in very poor conditions -- once, I didn't see the ground until we touched down, as the fog and rain were so dense -- so I assume that it is fully equipped for autoland. So, the emergency northern (taxiway) runway is just that -- it's no substitute for the normal main runway. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:21:47 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:33:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: That all makes sense, but when I look at Gatwick something confuses me. It seems to have a second runway, 08L and 26R, to the North of the main one. I thought Gatwick only had one runway. This one is rather short, and the markings on it are slightly different to those on the main runway. What is this used for? Gatwick has a taxiway that is parallel to the main runway. However, it can be used as an emergency runway if the main runway is out of action for any reason. It is not used as a runway under any other circumstances. In particular, it cannot be used as a second runway because there would be no proper taxiways and stop bars and all the other essential features an airport needs to support two runways. It is constructed to full runway (rather than taxiway) standards including width, pavement strength and lighting, and has its own sets of approach lights and VASIs (visual approach slope indicators). Some years ago, I was on a BA 737 that was attempting to land at LGW 08L on a stormy night, as 08R was closed for overnight maintenance. The pilot warned that it didn't have the same level of guidance systems as the normal runway, so he wasn't confident that he'd be able to land. I assume it lacked ILS then, and perhaps still does. That's why I mentioned approach lights and VASIs, but not ILS. And, indeed, when we emerged from the clouds, the plane wasn't lined up properly, so he had to abort the landing, and decided that the clouds were too low to make another attempt. He duly diverted to LHR, which would have been good news for me except that my car was parked at LGW. It took ages for the bus to get the pax back to Gatwick, and it must have been about three hours after our Heathrow landing before I drove past it again on my way home. In contrast, I have landed on LGW 26L in very poor conditions -- once, I didn't see the ground until we touched down, as the fog and rain were so dense -- so I assume that it is fully equipped for autoland. So, the emergency northern (taxiway) runway is just that -- it's no substitute for the normal main runway. That's why I said: "However, it can be used as an emergency runway if the main runway is out of action for any reason. It is not used as a runway under any other circumstances." |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
"Bruce" wrote in message
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:21:47 +0100, "Recliner" wrote: "Bruce" wrote in message On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 07:33:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote: That all makes sense, but when I look at Gatwick something confuses me. It seems to have a second runway, 08L and 26R, to the North of the main one. I thought Gatwick only had one runway. This one is rather short, and the markings on it are slightly different to those on the main runway. What is this used for? Gatwick has a taxiway that is parallel to the main runway. However, it can be used as an emergency runway if the main runway is out of action for any reason. It is not used as a runway under any other circumstances. In particular, it cannot be used as a second runway because there would be no proper taxiways and stop bars and all the other essential features an airport needs to support two runways. It is constructed to full runway (rather than taxiway) standards including width, pavement strength and lighting, and has its own sets of approach lights and VASIs (visual approach slope indicators). Some years ago, I was on a BA 737 that was attempting to land at LGW 08L on a stormy night, as 08R was closed for overnight maintenance. The pilot warned that it didn't have the same level of guidance systems as the normal runway, so he wasn't confident that he'd be able to land. I assume it lacked ILS then, and perhaps still does. That's why I mentioned approach lights and VASIs, but not ILS. My experience was some years ago -- do you know if it's any better now? And, indeed, when we emerged from the clouds, the plane wasn't lined up properly, so he had to abort the landing, and decided that the clouds were too low to make another attempt. He duly diverted to LHR, which would have been good news for me except that my car was parked at LGW. It took ages for the bus to get the pax back to Gatwick, and it must have been about three hours after our Heathrow landing before I drove past it again on my way home. In contrast, I have landed on LGW 26L in very poor conditions -- once, I didn't see the ground until we touched down, as the fog and rain were so dense -- so I assume that it is fully equipped for autoland. So, the emergency northern (taxiway) runway is just that -- it's no substitute for the normal main runway. That's why I said: "However, it can be used as an emergency runway if the main runway is out of action for any reason. It is not used as a runway under any other circumstances." Yes, I was agreeimng with you. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 13:28:34 +0100, "Recliner"
wrote: "Bruce" wrote That's why I mentioned approach lights and VASIs, but not ILS. My experience was some years ago -- do you know if it's any better now? It hasn't changed, except that the VASIs (visual approach slope indicators) on both runways have been upgraded to PAPIs (precision approach path indicators). Both are purely visual aids working on similar optical principles using polarised light, and are sensitive to cloud conditions. VASIs give an up/down indication of whether the aircraft is on the correct glide path. PAPIs give up/down and also left/right indications. But if you cannot see them because of thick cloud, they are useless. From Wikipedia: "The main runway operates with a Category III Instrument Landing System. The northern runway does not have an Instrument Landing System and, when it is in use, arriving aircraft use a combination of Distance Measuring Equipment and assistance from the approach controller using surveillance radar, or where equipped and subject to operator approval, an RNAV (GNSS) Approach, which is also available for the main runway. On all runways, considerable use is made of continuous descent approach to minimise environmental effects of incoming aircraft, particularly at night." RNAV (GNSS) is a navigation system, usually GPS based, that aims to get the aircraft to a point where VASIs or PAPIs can be used for the landing. It is very inferior to ILS which can put the plane on the runway with a high degree of safety. The last sentence refers to a higher altitude approach which means pilots have to lose height rapidly to regain the traditional glide path on final approach. The intention is to keep noise pollution to a minimum in towns under the flight path. It is like the noise abatement principle used for take-offs, but in reverse. It is used routinely, and not just at night. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
Bruce wrote on 12 June 2010 14:19:38 ...
From Wikipedia: [re Gatwick] "The main runway operates with a Category III Instrument Landing System. The northern runway does not have an Instrument Landing System and, when it is in use, arriving aircraft use a combination of Distance Measuring Equipment and assistance from the approach controller using surveillance radar, or where equipped and subject to operator approval, an RNAV (GNSS) Approach, which is also available for the main runway. On all runways, considerable use is made of continuous descent approach to minimise environmental effects of incoming aircraft, particularly at night." .... The last sentence refers to a higher altitude approach which means pilots have to lose height rapidly to regain the traditional glide path on final approach. That's a misleading description, as a conventional approach in which an aircraft is directed to fly successively at a number of different altitudes in level flight is more likely to involve rapid descents from one level to the next. With CDA, the aim is to allow an aircraft to descend continuously at 3 degrees, with consequent benefits to fuel burn and noise. For Heathrow and Gatwick, CDA applies from leaving the holding stack at about 7000 ft and typically 25 miles from the airport. See "Basic Principles of the Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) for the Non-Aviation Community" at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/68/Basic_Principles_CDA.pdf -- Richard J. (to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address) |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 16:40:22 +0100, "Richard J."
wrote: Bruce wrote on 12 June 2010 14:19:38 ... From Wikipedia: [re Gatwick] "The main runway operates with a Category III Instrument Landing System. The northern runway does not have an Instrument Landing System and, when it is in use, arriving aircraft use a combination of Distance Measuring Equipment and assistance from the approach controller using surveillance radar, or where equipped and subject to operator approval, an RNAV (GNSS) Approach, which is also available for the main runway. On all runways, considerable use is made of continuous descent approach to minimise environmental effects of incoming aircraft, particularly at night." .... The last sentence refers to a higher altitude approach which means pilots have to lose height rapidly to regain the traditional glide path on final approach. That's a misleading description, as a conventional approach in which an aircraft is directed to fly successively at a number of different altitudes in level flight is more likely to involve rapid descents from one level to the next. With CDA, the aim is to allow an aircraft to descend continuously at 3 degrees, with consequent benefits to fuel burn and noise. For Heathrow and Gatwick, CDA applies from leaving the holding stack at about 7000 ft and typically 25 miles from the airport. See "Basic Principles of the Continuous Descent Approach (CDA) for the Non-Aviation Community" at http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/68/Basic_Principles_CDA.pdf Thanks, Richard. It wasn't a misleading description, it was just plain wrong. So thank you for being so polite. ;-) |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
On 9 June, 08:37, Roland Perry wrote:
London's Second airport, which just grew there by accident. Stansted, being the official "Third airport" was the result of extensive public enquiries etc, to satisfy the need for more capacity for London. Just like the third runway at Heathrow is/was at the moment. So what about Luton? It came to be known in the '70s and '80s as the home of charter flights for cheap holidays in Spain etc., but what were its origins? I can't help wondering if the move from Gatwick to Heathrow by Continental a couple of years ago was related to the forced sale of Gatwick by BAA. Are BAA offering some sort of incentive to airlines to move to the airports which it will continue to own? It would make sense from their point of view to expand Heathrow as much as possible. I've only flown once sine the move, and having to go to Heathrow is a real pain for me. I know that when the new terminal was built at Stanstead enough land was available to allow it to be expanded to about twice its original size. Is there scope to increase the capacity of that airport? If two very short sections of railway hadn't closed then trains could have run directly to Stanstead from both Luton, or at least the airport parkway station, and Gatwick for those with connecting flights from other airports. Luton would still be possible, but Gatwick wouldn't. Heathrow is still horrible to get to. The Underground takes ages, and doesn't really have the space for luggage. The Express is expensive, and only goes to Paddington, as do the Connect trains. Neither of these services serve all terminals. The express Airbus routes from central London no longer run, the X26 From Croydon does, but doesn't serve 4 or 5, and the fare on the Underground from Hatton Cross to 4 is more than that on the bus all the way from Croydon. I'm not sure which other bus/coach services still operate to Heathrow. Heathrow is already too spread out, needing to take a train between termini rather than the typical airport transit thing found elsewhere, but of course, if you spread the flights out to other airports then you make this even worse. I don't know what the answer is, other than to travel less, as we used to. |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
|
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
wrote in message ... On 9 June, 08:37, Roland Perry wrote: London's Second airport, which just grew there by accident. Stansted, being the official "Third airport" was the result of extensive public enquiries etc, to satisfy the need for more capacity for London. Just like the third runway at Heathrow is/was at the moment. So what about Luton? It came to be known in the '70s and '80s as the home of charter flights for cheap holidays in Spain etc., but what were its origins? I can't help wondering if the move from Gatwick to Heathrow by Continental a couple of years ago was related to the forced sale of Gatwick by BAA. Are BAA offering some sort of incentive to airlines to move to the airports which it will continue to own? It's not allowed to If an airport wants to make special offers (which will usually be for the first xx months of a route's operation) it must make the same offer available to any airline. tim |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
In message
, at 02:56:27 on Sun, 13 Jun 2010, remarked: I can't help wondering if the move from Gatwick to Heathrow by Continental a couple of years ago was related to the forced sale of Gatwick by BAA. It's because the "Open Skies" policy plus continued retrenchment by BA made everyone decide that Heathrow was "the" place to be for transatlantic flights. -- Roland Perry |
BAA still making plans to resurrect dead runway
In message , Bruce
wrote: It hasn't changed, except that the VASIs (visual approach slope indicators) on both runways have been upgraded to PAPIs (precision approach path indicators). Both are purely visual aids working on similar optical principles using polarised light, and are sensitive to cloud conditions. They aren't polarized; they simply involve lights shining above or below an aligned plate. VASIs give an up/down indication of whether the aircraft is on the correct glide path. PAPIs give up/down and also left/right indications. I don't believe PAPIs give sideways indications; they just give a better indication of the actual slope. As I understand it, VASIs consist of two sets of lights which show red below the glide path angle and white above it. So if you're on the correct path, you see red over white. PAPIs, on the other hand, consist of one set of four lights but each light is set at a different angle. So the number of white lights indicates what angle you're at - the correct angle is shown by two reds and two whites. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk