In message , at 15:58:28 on
Mon, 23 Sep 2019, Recliner 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.

So about the same as the fuel used by a car getting from the M25 to
terminals 2/3 and back.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-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.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

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.

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.

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.

On 23/09/2019 16:04, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-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.


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.

But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point
before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend
somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way
(but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to
do).

If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the
airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were
embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and
refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes
- I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds,
but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in
a lot of circumstances.

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 23/09/2019 16:04, Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:58:53 +0100, Basil Jet
wrote:

On 23/09/2019 12:15, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-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.


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.

But it seems obvious that the best solution would be some kind of
(presumably) electrical tug that could take a plane from the gate to the
point where it needs to switch to using its own engines for takeoff.
This might require some taxiway optimisation (as at the last point
before turning on to the runway the planes would presumably spend
somewhat longer there), and some way for the tugs to get out of the way
(but a smaller taxiway for them to return via would be perfectly easy to
do).

Yes, ideas along these lines are often suggested, but I guess the economics
don't yet work. I'm not sure how long jet engines need to run before
take-off — perhaps quite a bit of the taxi time?


If you took the idea further then you could considerably optimise the
airport - planes would only need to be at gates for when passengers were
embarking/disembarking and there could be dedicated cleaning and
refueling areas where planes could be taken at the relevant times. Yes
- I realise that for shorthaul there are often very quick turnarounds,
but at LHR for example there seems to be a poor utilisation of gates in
a lot of circumstances.

They do move long haul planes away from the gates during layovers. For
example, you can normally see a Qantas A380 parked near the tank farm
during the day. If you look on Google Maps you'll see six planes parked in
that area, and another near the control tower. There's also a parking area
to the east of T2 with room for about eight aircraft.

But moving the aircraft to and from the remote stands costs money and
disrupts other aircraft movements, so is only worth doing if there's a
shortage of gates.

Recliner wrote:

Isn't that what those yellow drones someone linked to last week are for?

They don't fly, so they're not drones.

Is there an actual definition for a drone that says it must fly ?
In the past I have heard the term used to describe unmanned submersibles,
they are similar in that like the flying ones they can move along vertical
axis as well as horizontal so perhaps that is what differentiates a drone
from something else but when checking that such submersibles are still
being called drones I came across a few examples of “land drones� mainly
being developed for military use .
eg
https://sites.google.com/site/umainelanddrone10/

Such things used to be just unmanned ground vehicles so is the reality is
that the term drone is now being used to encompass other objects that are
remote controlled and its use in language hasn’t settled yet.

GH

In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-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.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

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 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.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

--
Roland Perry

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.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:13:29 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-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.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

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.

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.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.