On 23/09/2019 17:01, Recliner wrote:

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.


Yes but again with an automated, electrically powered movement system
that might be able to be improved.

Talking of that, there's an awful lot of dead space at airports covered
with grass - could you cover that with solar panels to charge up
batteries to power all those autonomous tugs?

I just always appreciate when I land on a plane late in the evening that
despite the airport being almost done for the day, you always seem to
end up at some remote gate and have a hike to passport control past
plenty of dark gates all with aircraft sat at them that clearly won't be
used for a good number of hours.

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.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

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.

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.

QED.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 17:46:05 on Mon, 23
Sep 2019, MissRiaElaine remarked:

They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.

I wonder why no-one suggested that?

--
Roland Perry

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.

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.

In article , wrote:
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.

--
Regards,
John Levine, , Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

On 24/09/2019 03:39, John Levine wrote:
In article , wrote:
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.

It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of
glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time,
but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR)

Someone Somewhere wrote:
On 24/09/2019 03:39, John Levine wrote:
In article , wrote:
At some airports - don't know about heathrow - some aircraft push back using
reverse thrusters.

The last plane I saw push back with a thrust reverser was an MD-80
quite a long time ago. I believe that nobody does that any more both
because it burns a lot of fuel, and the risk of junk getting into the
engine or the exhaust hurting someone on the tarmac near the plane.

It's actually the fact that most airport terminals are now vast walls of
glass and the consequential risk of damage (obviously not every time,
but even with a 0.1% chance then that's one broken pane a day at e.g. LHR)


Yes, reverse thrust pushbacks are banned at most terminals because of the
significant risk of damage to the building, ramp workers, vehicles and
ground equipment, as well as FOD to the aircraft engines (the debris blown
forward would be sucked into the engines). If no pushback tugs are
available for an extended period for some reason (eg, a strike), an airline
may request a reverse thrust departure (if their aircraft is capable of it
— not all are) but the request would normally be rejected. It would
certainly need to be approved at a high level, and I wonder whose insurance
would cover the likely damage?

Recliner wrote:

Name one.

Was quite common at DFW with American Airlines DC-9/MD-80 aircraft. They stopped
doing that when fuel prices spiked a number of years ago.