|
Heathrow CC
In message , at 13:42:21 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT schedules. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an electric tug instead. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an electric tug instead. Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could achieve? Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area. Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be enacted to reduce pollution... |
Heathrow CC
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an electric tug instead. Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could achieve? Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area. Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be enacted to reduce pollution... The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost more than the current system — which is why no airport does it. |
Heathrow CC
On 25/09/2019 16:03, Recliner wrote:
Someone Somewhere wrote: On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an electric tug instead. Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could achieve? Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area. Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be enacted to reduce pollution... The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost more than the current system — which is why no airport does it. And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and there may be larger ones for bigger jets. The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous) system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle could be plausible. I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of normal public transport hours. So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option. What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty hot pretty quickly. What may be an issue is where running the engines sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem. |
Heathrow CC
Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 25/09/2019 16:03, Recliner wrote: Someone Somewhere wrote: On 25/09/2019 15:18, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 13:51:18 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-charge-is-exp ected-to-r aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3 Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehiclesÂ* goingÂ* to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissionsÂ* from theÂ* aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a tonÂ* of fuelÂ* just to get from the gate to take off position. What we really need here is fuel per passenger. I believe the fuel costs about £1 per passenger. from the airline mag [1] I was reading yesterday, it apparently costs 150,000 to fly a 767 round trip Europe-USA (didn't specify East or West Coast) No mention was made about how that cost was apportioned between operation costs and capital costs. A typical fare for a flight like that is going to be £400 each way. If they spend £1 of that taxiing to the end of the runway, we really do need to find something more useful to discuss than spending 90p on an electric tug instead. Wasn't the argument less about the money, and more about the fact they were introducing a congestion charge at LHR due to the locally high pollution levels and one of the points was less aircraft running their engines for less time equates to potentially a better local pollution reduction strategy than a reasonable reduction in cars in the area could achieve? Quick back of an envelope calculation: If your car does 40MPG, then that's about 10km per pound at 130p per litre, which is basically one return car trip into the Heathrow environs per passenger. Once you take into account that aviation fuel is tax free, then a better comparison is oil price - £50/150 litres, or 33p/litre, so even taking into account refining cost etc that's probably twice that distance Given that not every passenger arrives individually in a taxi (the worse possible scenario in terms of car miles per passenger in the area) then removing that £1/pax in fuel saves burning more hydrocarbons locally than would ever be feasible by removing all cars from the LHR area. Of course, cars don't start their journeys on the perimeter (however that is defined to be) but that's where the congestion charge is to be enacted to reduce pollution... The aircraft engines will still need to be started and warjed up some minutes before take-off, so they'll still burn much of that fuel. The powerful tugs needed to haul the aircraft will also consume fuel on their journeys in both directions. I don't think there are any electric options yet for that sort of powerful tug, so that means diesel. They will also need drivers, and dedicated routes around the airport that don't get in the way of planes. So it's not a clean option, and would almost certainly cost more than the current system — which is why no airport does it. And the discussion started as there aer electric tugs for shorthaul and there may be larger ones for bigger jets. Yes, possibly, but those pushback tugs are much less powerful, and need far less battery capacity than the far heftier tugs that could tow aircraft at normal taxi speeds (30-45 km/h) on non-level taxiways for distances of several miles. I'm not even sure that such high towing speeds are allowed, because of the stress on the nose landing gear. The electric pushback tugs only move the aircraft very slowly for distances of 100m or so, and then have a recharge, which is a vastly smaller task. The other discussion was about an autonomous (or partly autonomous) system. Being facetious I could point out there are the pods at Heathrow already, so similar technology with a much beefier vehicle could be plausible. The pods run only on a guideway, with no conflicting traffic. I accept it might need technologies and systems that don't exist, and a network of routes for them to get around, but if you're engaged in spending £15BN on a new runway and to get it accepted you need to reduce pollution then that kind of thing can be a driver to actually consider these sort of things rather than take the easy route (which strangely actually raises revenue) of charging cars for access when you operate an airport that passengers regularly arrive and depart from outside of normal public transport hours. So I accept it costs money, but it could be a clean option. A lot more money, and only slightly cleaner. What I'm not sure I accept is the length of time that aircraft engines need to be running before takeoff - I imagine those things get pretty hot pretty quickly. Apparently it's 2-5 minutes, and then there are the checks on pressures, etc. So it's perhaps 25-50% of the taxi time. What may be an issue is where running the engines sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem. The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many battery powered locos are in service? |
Heathrow CC
Recliner wrote:
What may be an issue is where running the engines sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem. The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many battery powered locos are in service? Well you haven’t specified a size so we could start with the ones traditionally used for engineering on the London Underground , don’t know the exact number but it used to be around 29. Something that size will be impractical for the task mentioned but smaller examples tend to be used out of sight in numerous mines though as the UK has relatively few such operations left most are used abroad such as those exported by the Clayton Equipment company who have also converted diesel locos to battery for the Underground , they don’t horrendously large http://www.tribe-engineering.co.uk/p...40-locomotive/ Newcastle Metro also operate a couple of battery locos which like the London ones they can run off the normal power supply if it is available. Glasgow subway operate a couple of battery locos for engineering work as well. GH |
Heathrow CC
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:42:21 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 17:44:02 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, tim... remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Don't assume. Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 17:44:02 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Don't assume. Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 20:04:05 on Wed, 25 Sep
2019, Recliner remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Don't assume. Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 20:04:05 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, Recliner remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Don't assume. Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? |
Heathrow CC
On 26/09/2019 09:39, Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:04:05 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, Recliner remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Heathrow CC
On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote: On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. Ah, a retired Aberdonian bus driver prefers Gatwick to Heathrow, so we need to rush to revise the entire London airports strategy! But perhaps you need to first persuade your own government that your idea is better: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37605123 |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:19:27 +0100, MissRiaElaine
wrote: On 26/09/2019 09:39, Recliner wrote: Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 20:04:05 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, Recliner remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... I can't comment on Heathrow's staff buses, but lost of workers seem to be able to come on duty in the early hours of the morning. Whether they use staff buses, staff car parks (with buses to the terminal) or 24-hour buses I can't say. But this forum provides some information: "There are 3 staff car parks for Terminal 5, they are N1, N2 and N5 all next to each other on the Northern Perimeter Road adjacent to T5 Business parking. Employers such as British Airways and BAA pay for the parking for their employees, other employers make the employees pay for the parking themselves." https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=1843761 |
Heathrow CC
On 25 Sep 2019 16:37:36 GMT, Marland
wrote: Recliner wrote: What may be an issue is where running the engines sit in the pre-flight checklists but an electric tug with a big enough battery could power some of the aircraft systems whilst it is being towed (there are certainly ground based APUs for those aircraft without one). Ok - I accept that charging such things may be a problem. The tugs would need the power of a railway locomotive. Remind me, how many battery powered locos are in service? Well you haven’t specified a size so we could start with the ones traditionally used for engineering on the London Underground , don’t know the exact number but it used to be around 29. Something that size will be impractical for the task mentioned but smaller examples tend to be used out of sight in numerous mines though as the UK has relatively few such operations left most are used abroad such as those exported by the Clayton Equipment company who have also converted diesel locos to battery for the Underground , they don’t horrendously large http://www.tribe-engineering.co.uk/p...40-locomotive/ Newcastle Metro also operate a couple of battery locos which like the London ones they can run off the normal power supply if it is available. Glasgow subway operate a couple of battery locos for engineering work as well. An A380 tug would probably need as much tractive effort as a large railway loco. |
Heathrow CC
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 17:44:02 on Wed, 25 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20 quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary (obviously not so for flight crew) You know that's what the staff car park costs? no I just assumed that it wasn't going to be free, like it isn't at most hospitals Don't assume. Also the antisocial hours involved for many don't chime well with PT there's' 24 hour PT available to LHR Very patchy. Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. there are 5 night routes that run from the Northern Perimeter Road (which IME is where all the hotels are) to the central Terminals and one to T5 I agree that T4 is isolated from the night network (unless a new one has appeared since my map was "printed" |
Heathrow CC
"MissRiaElaine" wrote in message ... On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2 this week, so would I tim |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 13:19:27 on Thu, 26
Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
"tim..." wrote:
after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2 this week, so would I I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the core is redeveloped? |
Heathrow CC
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ... In message , at 13:19:27 on Thu, 26 Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid-o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement yim |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 08:58:26 -0500, Arthur Conan Doyle
wrote: "tim..." wrote: after suffering a 20 minute walk from the gate to passport control, at T2 this week, so would I I agree - that trek is really a pain. Are there any plans to shorten it as the core is redeveloped? One hopes that there will one day be an underground shuttle to the satellite, as in T5, rather than the long walkway with three travelators. I think the long-term plan for T2 is to have another parallel eastern satellite (as well as two western satellites, replacing T3), and that will certainly require a shuttle. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 14:51:23 on Thu, 26 Sep
2019, tim... remarked: Someone I know had to get the first bus of the day to check in from a perimeter hotel to the central terminals. How would the check in staff get there. there are 5 night routes that run from the Northern Perimeter Road (which IME is where all the hotels are) to the central Terminals and one to T5 The [hotels along] northern perimeter road are not a point source, nor are they mopped up by every bus. It's very patchy. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 15:18:00 on Thu, 26 Sep
2019, tim... remarked: Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid- o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff. But not all the staff live on the Heathrow Connect corridor. [1] Just like Heathrow Express exists only for people rich enough to get to Central London by taxi, but who can be persuaded to do a least the 15 miles closest to Heathrow in a train. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:38:05 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 15:18:00 on Thu, 26 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid- o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff. But not all the staff live on the Heathrow Connect corridor. That may be why it was created, but it doesn't exist any more, of course. |
Heathrow CC
On 26/09/2019 13:53, Recliner wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100, MissRiaElaine Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. Ah, a retired Aberdonian bus driver prefers Gatwick to Heathrow, so we need to rush to revise the entire London airports strategy! But perhaps you need to first persuade your own government that your idea is better: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37605123 I doubt anybody could persuade *that* shower of anything. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:38:05 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote: In message , at 15:18:00 on Thu, 26 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid- o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff. Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other airports). I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been charged a zero fare. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com |
Heathrow CC
Trolleybus wrote:
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:38:05 +0100, Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 15:18:00 on Thu, 26 Sep 2019, tim... remarked: Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid- o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff. Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other airports). I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been charged a zero fare. Yes, the buses announce when they're about to leave the free zone (eg, north of the Bath Road). I presume you don't need to touch in if your journey is entirely within that zone. |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 09:57:30 on
Fri, 27 Sep 2019, Trolleybus remarked: There are some 24-hour buses to Heathrow, such as the 140. Sure, but can all the staff cram onto that one route? I wonder if there are staff buses that operate overnight? And do either go where the staff actually live..? When I was a bus driver in the Birmingham area in the late 90's/early 00's, we had a few staff buses which picked up drivers on the stupid- o'clock starts, but they only went a limited distance from the garage (5 miles or so I think) and I lived 7 miles away. So it was drive or not work. The company had the attitude that it was your responsibility to get to work and if you couldn't for whatever reason, tough, find another job... It's a bit more difficult to have that attitude at a place like Heathrow. I think their solution is to provide ample staff car parking, it's not as if they don't have the room. but they do have a mandate to lessen car arrivals at the airport I doubt that staff travel is exempted from that requirement Which is precisely why Heathrow Connect exists[1]. It's not a back-door into Heathrow for skinflint passengers, it's for staff. Staff are also latgely the reason that bus travel is free in and around Heathrow (and subsidised to/from Stansted and I suspect other airports). The shuttle bus from the railway station to Luton Airport is free for holders of staff passes. (It used to be free for everyone, but that's another long story). I've caught service buses from Bath Road to T5 and been charged a zero fare. Indeed, but more of an issue in the circumstances was when the first bus of the day ran. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100
MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport or the brighton main line. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. By doing proper professional surveys. Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit referendum win for remain? of one of the private parking companies. Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes? Nope. North side. QED. Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about the carparks run by Heathrow Plc. |
Heathrow CC
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs. At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. Name one. Borispol, Kiev. |
Heathrow CC
wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 19:47:45 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 15:44:25 -0000 (UTC) Recliner wrote: wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 16:04:12 +0100 Recliner wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel just to get from the gate to take off position. Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for? They don't fly, so they're not drones. They're robotugs called Mototok Spacer 8600s. They aren't powerful enough to push back wide-bodied jets, though a larger model might. In any case, they don't replace any jet fuel, as pushback would otherwise be done by hefty diesel tugs. So they save some diesel fuel and fumes, but not aviation fuel. If you knew anything about physics you'd be aware that using a jet engine to push a vehicle on the ground is far less efficient than using powered wheels. Half of the energy is wasted on chucking air backwards rather than making the aircraft go forwards. Who are you arguing with? Nobody claimed that jet engines were an efficient way of moving large vehicles slowly round an airport. We were discussing diesel vs battery pushback tugs. At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using reverse thrusters. Name one. Borispol, Kiev. https://www.123rf.com/photo_113415088_borispol-ukraine-october-05-2018-the-pushback-of-the-ellinair-airbus-a320-200-aircraft-in-the-borisp.html https://youtu.be/7ifDnXNNeLM |
Heathrow CC
On 27/09/2019 20:26, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. By doing proper professional surveys. Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit referendum win for remain? I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the argument. Let's call it Boris's Law. -- Ria in Aberdeen [Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct] |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 19:26:11 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. By doing proper professional surveys. Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit referendum win for remain? Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion polling. of one of the private parking companies. Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes? Nope. North side. QED. Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about the carparks run by Heathrow Plc. Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the Heathrow complex. -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
In message , at 19:24:25 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked: On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 13:21:23 +0100 MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 20:47, Recliner wrote: MissRiaElaine wrote: On 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again. They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second runway at Gatwick would make far more sense. Not according to the official Airports Commission, the majority of passengers or the airlines. Well, whatever as they say. I would certainly prefer to use Gatwick than Heathrow any day. Bit of a PITA to get to unless you live near the airport Or the M25. The eastern section of which I find much more reliable than the western. or the brighton main line. Which serves Central London with its connections and even direct trains from counties norf of the river, that latter something which Heathrow lacks (until Crossrail serves parts of Essex). -- Roland Perry |
Heathrow CC
On 27/09/2019 21:48, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 27/09/2019 20:26, wrote: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. By doing proper professional surveys. Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit referendum win for remain? I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the argument. Let's call it Boris's Law. Godwin's law doesn't say you lose the argument, just "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1" -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Heathrow CC
On 28/09/2019 07:30, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:26:11 on Fri, 27 Sep 2019, remarked: On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep 2019, remarked: I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by private car was a small percentage of the total. Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff. It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows how they calculate that. By doing proper professional surveys. Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit referendum win for remain? Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion polling. of one of the private parking companies. Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes? Nope. North side. QED. Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about the carparks run by Heathrow Plc. Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the Heathrow complex. And if you were staring out of the window you weren't doing your job. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:02 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk